Search

Cysteine S-nitrosation is a redox-based post-translational modification that mediates nitric oxide (NO) regulation of various aspects of plant growth, development and stress responses. Despite its importance, studies exploring protein signaling pathways that are regulated by S-nitrosation during somatic embryogenesis have not been performed. In the present study, endogenous cysteine S-nitrosation site and S-nitrosated proteins were identified by iodo-TMT labeling during somatic embryogenesis in Brazilian pine, an endangered native conifer of South America. In addition, endogenous –S-nitrosothiol (SNO) levels and S-nitrosoglutathione reductase (GSNOR) activity were determined in cell lines with contrasting embryogenic potential. Overall, we identified an array of proteins associated with a large variety of biological processes and molecular functions with some of them already described as important for somatic embryogenesis (Class IV chitinase, pyruvate dehydrogenase E1 and dehydroascorbate reductase). In total, our S-nitrosoproteome analyses identified 18 endogenously S-nitrosated proteins and 50 in vitro S-nitrosated proteins (after GSNO treatment) during cell culture proliferation and embryo development. Furthermore, SNO levels and GSNOR activity were increased during embryo formation. These findings expand our understanding of the Brazilian pine proteome and shed novel insights into the potential use of pharmacological manipulation of NO levels by using NO inhibitors and donors during somatic embryogenesis.

Cysteine

The article reports a comparative study of the representation of migration in media from three countries (Greece, Italy, and Turkey), over 2001–2018 period. Analysis showed the salience of two main...

Previous research on how financial crisis affects managers’ earnings management behavior has resulted in different scenarios with inconclusive results. To address the ambiguity in the findings in the literature, the present study presents critical realism as an alternative to the positivist mainstream approach. The study argues against the existence of a causal law based on a constant conjunction model (i.e., whenever a financial crisis happens, earnings management happens) and concludes that financial crisis cannot be seen as the cause of earnings management. Finally, it suggests exploring other structures at work that might be responsible for earnings management.

Additional file 2: Supplementary Table 2. Shows the results of the viral genotyping of the test sample.

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1. To study the dependence between regression and age we divided the truck under study into three age groups (according to the 33rd and 66th percentile: “20-29”, “30-34” and “35+).They are significant.

In Italy, use and production of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were banned in 1992, however, the risk of exposure to asbestos still exists, because most ACMs are located in industrial and public buildings. A total of 111 Italian buildings with friable and non-friable ACMs were surveyed; 500 air samples were collected in the areas where contamination might have occurred. Airborne asbestos fiber concentration calculated from air samples was averaged for each building. Statistical analysis of the data showed no significant differences between the mean concentration measured in buildings with friable and non-friable ACMs (p = 0.258). The concentration values were below 2 f/L, the value stated by Italian regulation to ensure that the area is safe to reoccupy after asbestos removal. Samples of settled dust were also collected. The presence of asbestos fibers in the dust showed the occurrence of a release of asbestos from the material. Although the airborne asbestos fiber concentrations measured were low, current Italian regulation requires an asbestos management program. The Public Institution to which the authors of this work belong encourages asbestos removal as the preferred abatement method, in line with the asbestos-free future approach proposed by the European Commission.

Maliithipon cf. aberrans (Mielke 1984a) = Apodopsyllus aberrans Mielke 1984a in Packmor et al. (2015) and Packmor & George (2016) (Figs. 6–11) Material examined. Two male and four female specimens, each one undissected and mounted on one slide labelled respectively: Apodopsyllus aberrans, adult female. Prainha, ST 1/3 (Madeira Island); Apodopsyllus aberrans, adult female, Prainha, ST 1/4 (Madeira Island); Apodopsyllus aberrans, adult male. Prainha, ST 1/6 (Madeira Island); Apodopsyllus aberrans, adult male. Calheta, ST1/1 (Madeira Island); Apodopsyllus aberrans, adult female, Puerto Santo Island East, ST 3/6; Apodopsyllus aberrans, adult female, Puerto Santo Island East, ST 3/6. Details on the collecting methods, collecting sites and dates in Packmor et al. (2015). Description of female. Habitus (Fig. 6A). Body unpigmented, elongate, cylindrical and slightly depressed dorsoventrally, naupliar eye absent. Length 228 μm, n = 4, mean = 229 μm. Last urosomites tapering posteriorly. Free pedigerous somites without any lateral or dorsal expansions, all connected by well-developed arthrodial membranes. Ventrolateral margin of first, second, and fourth free thoracic somites with row of denticles (Fig. 6B). Integument weakly sclerotized, without cuticular pits. First pedigerous somite and dorsal cephalic shield fused forming cephalothorax representing about 26% of total body length. Cephalothorax and somites with few sensilla and several pores on dorsal, lateral and ventral surfaces (pores were difficult to observe, their pattern could not be precisely determined). Second and third urosomite completely fused to form genital double-somite. Penultimate body somite without sensilla, carrying a fine, well developed lobate pseudoperculum (Figs. 6A, 7C). Anal somite small, with pair of dorsal sensilla (Fig. 7B); anal operculum not visible. Genital field (Fig. 6C–D) small, ellipsoidal with two small lateral lobes, located mid-ventrally and at mid-length of the genital double-somite, surrounded by eight pores of different size; P6 not discernible (morphology probably as in M. wellsi). Caudal rami (Fig. 7 °–B). Parallel, slightly longer than the last urosomite; length: 14 μm; length/width: 1.8. Approximately rectangular in shape, slightly tapering posteriorly, the distal outer corner is prolonged in a ventral cuticular outgrowth; armature represented by six setae (seta I apparently missing): seta II short and very thin, seta III stout and pointed, unipinnate along approximately one/fifth of the distal outer margin; seta IV unipinnate, seta V bare and very reduced; seta VI as seta III but shorter; seta VII bare, bi-articulate at base and arising distally at two-thirds of the ramus length. Rostrum (Fig. 6A, 8A). Small, approximately triangular, with round tip, fused to cephalic shield, armed with two sensilla. Antennule (Fig. 8A–B). Short, robust, 8-segmented. First segment longest, without armature; second segment with ten setae, four of which pinnate, the one on the outer distal corner longest. Third segment provided with two pinnate and five bare setae. Inner distal corner of fourth segment forming a sub-cylindrical process carrying a long and thick aesthetasc fused at base with one long bare seta, and two short, basally-enlarged setae, the outer one pinnate. Fifth segment smallest, with one bare seta. Sixth segment with two bare setae; seventh segment with one bare and one pinnate seta. Eighth segment with seven bare setae and one pinnate and acrothek formed by a slender aesthetasc and a seta fused at base. Armature formula: 1–[0], 2–[6 bare + 4 pinnate], 3–[5 bare + 2 pinnate], 4–[1 bare + 1 pinnate + (1 + ae)], 5–[1 bare], 6–[2 bare], 7–[1 bare + 1 pinnate], 8–[8 bare + 1 pinnate + acrothek]. Antenna (Fig. 8C–D). 4-segmented; coxa small and bare; basis approximately twice longer than wide, without any surface ornamentation; exopod (Fig. 8D) 1-segmented, with two bare setae laterally, one pinnate seta and one short spine apically. Endopod 2-segmented, proximal segment with one pinnate abexopodal seta; distal endopodal segment armed with two subdistal bare spiniform setae, distal margin carrying three bare geniculate setae and three bare normal setae, one of which very short. Mandible (Fig. 8E). Coxa long and narrow, with well-developed gnathobase bearing one bare seta at dorsal corner; cutting edge provided with three apical needle-like teeth, one long pointed tooth on inner and on outer corner, one tooth has double the size of the other. Palp reduced, 2-segmented, comprising roundish basis, 1-segmented endopod with one seta, one pinnate spiniform seta, and one spinule distally, and one lateral unipinnate spiniform seta. Maxillule (Fig. 8F). Difficult to discern. All setae bare. Praecoxal arthrite roundish, with one seta at half of the lateral margin (marked with asterisk in Fig. 8F), two thin and two stronger setae at distal margin. Coxa prolonged in a cylindrical endite with two apical setae; basis with one apical seta. Exopod and endopod missing. Maxilla (Fig. 9A). Overall very large compared to the other mouthparts (in lateral view, it projects from the cephalothoracic margin); syncoxa with three endites, proximal one small with one apical pinnate seta, median endite small with one apical pinnate seta, distal coxal endite with two apical bare setae. Allobasis prolonged into strong denticled claw; endopod fused to basis and armed with four strong setae distally. Maxilliped (Fig. 9C). 3-segmented, comprising syncoxa, basis, and 1-segmented endopod; syncoxa bare, basis slightly longer than coxa and bare; endopod short, distally one normal and two slightly geniculated bare setae. P1 (Fig. 9D). Intercoxal sclerite long and thin, slightly concave; coxa bare, well-developed; basis without outer seta, with bare inner seta at half length of the inner margin; exopod and endopod 2-segmented, exopod slightly shorter than endopod. First exopodal segment longer than the second one, with spinular row along outer margin, strong pinnate seta on distal outer corner; second segment with spinular row along outer margin, four distal pinnate setae, the innermost is the longest. First endopodal segment bare, 2.5 times longer than the second one, with spinules along outer margin; second segment with spinules along the distal part of the outer margin, two long geniculate apical setae. P2–P4. (Figs. 9E–F, 10A). Intercoxal sclerites long and thin. P2 basis with small bare outer seta and with a row of spinules on inner margin; P3 and P4 basis with outer pinnate seta. Exopods 3-segmented, first, second and third segments with spinular row along outer margin and outer unipinnate, curved spine at distal corner, longest in P4 exp-2; third segment also with apical long geniculate pinnate seta. Endopods missing. Setal formula provided in Table 1. P5 (Fig. 6C). Reduced to two adjacent lobed plates laterally inserted; the outermost plate with a pinnate seta (ancestral basal seta), the innermost plate, roundish, with three setae, the longest middle one unipinnate. Description of male. General body shape and ornamentation as in female, but slightly smaller and more slender, body length 220 μm; prosome to urosome ratio: 0.85. Last urosomites tapering posteriorly. Cephalothorax representing about 25% of total body length. Antenna, Mdb, Mxl, Mx, Mxp, P1–P4 (Figs. 10D, 11–C) as in female. Sexual dimorphism in separation of genital somite, A1, P5, and P6, ventrolateral margin of free thoracic somites without row of denticles; P2 basis ornamentation, P3–P4 basis armature; P4 exp-2 armature.Anal somite small, anal operculum and dorsal sensilla of the anal somite not visible. Caudal rami (Fig. 11E). Shape and armature as in female but proportionally longer and thinner (length/width = 2). Antennule (Fig. 10C). Strong, short, subchirocer, 7-segmented. First segment without distal seta, as in female; second segment with long lateral seta, as in female, two short pinnate lateral setae, five bare setae. Third segment with four bare setae of different lengths, one short pinnate seta. Fourth segment small, with two short setae; fifth segment enlarged, square, with long aesthetasc fused at base with long seta. Fifth segment with lateral tubercle carrying one thick esthetasc and two setae of same length; inner distal corner produced in a tubercle carrying one bare seta and three shorter ones, the middle one is enlarged in the first half and pinnate. Sixth segment with one long and three short setae, one of which pinnate; seventh segment with eight bare setae and one small seta fused to aesthetasc to form apical acrothek. Armature formula: 1–[0], 2–[6 bare + 2 pinnate], 3–[4 bare + 1 pinnate], 4–[2 bare], 5–[4 bare + 1 pinnate + (1 + ae)], 6–[3 bare +1 pinnate], 7–[8 bare + acrothek]. P2 (Fig. 11A). Basis without inner row of spinules. P3 (Fig. 11B). Basis with outer bare seta. P4 (Fig. 11C). Basis with outer bare seta; exp-2 with distal spine of normal size. P5 (Fig. 10E). Similar to female but the two lobes are merged, smaller, and with bare setae; the exopod is merged with the somite and carries two setae (one less seta than in the female). P6 (Fig. 11D) represented by two asymmetrical (the right one is larger) roundish plates with one seta, the one on the right is longer. Spermatophore (Fig. 11D). Ellipsoidal, approximately as long as the somite carrying the P5. Variability. In one female paratype the maxillary distal endite is longer and carries three setae instead of two (Fig. 9B). In a second female paratype the P5 exopod carries one seta less (Fig. 10B) and setae IV and V on the caudal rami are normally developed (Fig. 7C). In one male seta V is normal on the right caudal ramus, and extremely reduced on the left caudal ramus (Fig. 11F). Remarks. Since the description of the new genus Maliithipon is based exclusively on morphological characters, M. cf. aberrans can be included in the new genus (Table 1). Females and males of M. cf. aberrans can be distinguished from those of M. wellsi sp. nov. by easily-observable characters, e.g. the caudal rami, P5 and P6. The distinction of M. cf. aberrans from M. aberrans comb. nov. is more difficult, mainly due to the lack of males in the type series of M. aberrans. As a consequence, the males collected in the Azores, initially listed as A. aberrans in Packmor et al. (2015) and Packmor & George (2016), cannot be compared with males of the type series, and could potentially belong to a different taxon. However, because the females collected in the Azores share the main discriminant features with M. aberrans, but differ in some minor features which are more difficult to observe (Table 1), we have chosen to be more conservative in the attribution of the taxonomic status to this population of Maliithipon, and not to follow Packmor et al. (2015) and Packmor & George (2016). The discovery of new populations, or the availability of new knowledge on the taxonomy of the existing populations (based for instance on scanning and/or confocal laser scanning microscopy; developmental study, molecular analysis) will hopefully allow to attribute a final taxonomic status to this taxon.

Maliithipon aberrans (Mielke, 1984a) comb. nov. This species was described as Apodopsyllus aberrans by Mielke (1984a) based on three female specimens collected in two sandy beaches on the Pacific Coast of Panama: “ Isla Naos” (two specimens) and “ Isla Melones” (one specimen). The description and the drawings clearly show how this species shares all the characters listed for Maliithipon gen. nov. This species can be distinguished from the type species M. wellsi sp. nov. by several characters (Table 1), some of which are easy to observe, such as the shape and size of caudal rami (shorter and wider in M. aberrans, length/ width: 1), the structure of P5 (more reduced in M. wellsi sp. nov.). To expand the comparison of the two species, we report here the antennulary armature deducted from Mielke’s (1984a: 227) original drawings: 1–[0], 2–[3 bare + 5 pinnate], 3–[3 bare + 3 pinnate], 4–[1 bare + 1 + ae], 5–[1 bare], 6–[1 pinnate], 7–[4 bare + 1 pinnate], 8–[4 bare + ae (acrothek?)]., Published as part of Cottarelli, Vezio & Bruno, Maria Cristina, 2021, Interesting interstitial Paramesochridae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida): Maliithipon wellsi gen. et sp. nov. from the Philippines, M. aberrans (Mielke, 1984) comb. nov from Panama, and M. cf. aberrans (Mielke, 1984) from the Azores, pp. 68-93 in Zootaxa 5051 (1) on page 80, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5051.1.7, http://zenodo.org/record/5564063, {"references":["Mielke, W. (1984 a) Einige Paramesochridae (Copepoda) von Panama. Spixiana, 7, 217 - 243."]}

Maliithipon aberrans (Mielke, 1984a) comb. nov. This species was described as Apodopsyllus aberrans by Mielke (1984a) based on three female specimens collected in two sandy beaches on the Pacific Coast of Panama: “ Isla Naos” (two specimens) and “ Isla Melones” (one specimen). The description and the drawings clearly show how this species shares all the characters listed for Maliithipon gen. nov. This species can be distinguished from the type species M. wellsi sp. nov. by several characters (Table 1), some of which are easy to observe, such as the shape and size of caudal rami (shorter and wider in M. aberrans, length/ width: 1), the structure of P5 (more reduced in M. wellsi sp. nov.). To expand the comparison of the two species, we report here the antennulary armature deducted from Mielke’s (1984a: 227) original drawings: 1–[0], 2–[3 bare + 5 pinnate], 3–[3 bare + 3 pinnate], 4–[1 bare + 1 + ae], 5–[1 bare], 6–[1 pinnate], 7–[4 bare + 1 pinnate], 8–[4 bare + ae (acrothek?)].

Genus Maliithipon gen. nov. zoobank.org:act: 3C6CE0CB-4E60-4257-8C14-4C2FF804DBB2 Diagnosis. Body elongate, cylindrical, slightly depressed dorsoventrally and slightly tapering distally. No distinct separation between prosome and urosome. Cephalotorax approximately quadrangular, larger than somites, longer than the following two somites, with sensilla and several dorsal pores. Dorsal pores present also on the remaining somites. Genital complex of female: genital field small, transversally oval, ventrally at half length of the double genital somite which lacks dorsal suture; P6 reduced to two small arched chitinous plates, apparently not fused; genital pore near the distal margin of the genital field, below the P6. Penultimate somite with well-developed quadrilobate pseudoperculum. Caudal rami approximately cylindrical, tapering distally in lateral view, apparently with six setae. Seta I missing (or not discernible), seta III and VI enlarged and pointed, unipinnate in the distal third on the outer (seta III) or inner (seta VI) margin. Distal setae (IV and V) variable in shape, peculiarly transformed in short fusiform structures in some specimens; seta VII dorsally inserted at 2/3 of the ramus length, biarticulate at base. Rostrum small, triangular, fused to cephalothorax, with two sensilla. Antennule 8-segmented in female, with large aesthetasc on segment four and small easthetasc on segment eight. Antennule 7-segmented in male, short, subchirocer, aesthetasc on segments V and VII. Antenna 4-segmented; coxa and basis without ornamentation, enp-1 with strong pinnate abexopodal seta, enp-2 armed with eight elements; exopod 1-segmented with two lateral setae and one or two distal ones, the longest one pinnate. Mandible with uniramous and 2-segmented palp comprising basis, 1-segmented endopod with four setae or three setae and one spine. Coxal gnathobase long, with dorsal seta; cutting edge with a row of thin and pointed teeth along the distal margin, with a stronger tooth at the inner and outer corner. Maxillula: praecoxal arthrite with strong lateral seta and 5-6 distal spiniform setae; coxa with one or two distal setae, basis with one or two to three apical setae; exopod and endopod missing. Maxilla large, with reduced chaetotaxy; syncoxa with three endites: proximal and median ones with one seta, distal one with two or three pinnate setae; basis produced into strong claw; endopod fused with basipodite, carrying four setae, one or two of which are claw-like. Maxilliped: subchelate, syncoxa bare; basis elongate and bare; endopod 1- or 2-segmented. P1: coxa large and bare, basis without outer basal seta, with strong inner seta; rami 2-segmented, endopod slightly longer than exopod, or of about equal length; exp-1 with long pinnate outer seta, exp-2 with four setae; enp-2 with two geniculate apical setae. P2-P4 laterally displaced but coxa and basis not fused and not markedly produced laterally; basis with outer seta. P2 basis with inner setular row in females; exopods 3-segmented, with two spiniform setae on distal segment; endopods absent. P5 very reduced in both sexes, partly incorporated in somite. In females, baseoendopod represented by a lobe with a lateral seta, exopod reduced to a minute subrectangular lobe with two bare and one pinnate setae or exopod reduced to a lobe with one seta. In males, baseoendopodal lobe with one seta, exopodal lobe with two setae or reduced to a small lobe without armature. P 6 in male reduced to two asymmetrical round plates with one or no seta. Type species. Maliithipon wellsi gen. et sp. nov. (by original designation). Other species. Apodopsyllus aberrans Mielke, 1984a = Maliithipon aberrans (Mielke, 1984a) comb. nov.; Apodopsyllus aberrans Mielke, 1984a in Packmor et al. (2015) and Packmor & George (2016) = Malliithipon cf. aberrans (Mielke, 1984a). Etymology. The generic name is derived from two Tagalog (the official language of the Philippines) words: “maliit” meaning small, and “hipon” meaning shrimp. Gender: masculine. Relationships. Based on the existing classifications, M. wellsi sp. nov. could have been included in the genus Apodopsyllus, as we did when we first examined our specimens, and as it had occurred for the specimens collected from the locus typicus and the Azores (Packmor et al. 2015; Packmor & George 2016). In fact, M. wellsi sp. nov. lacks the endopods of swimming legs P2–P4, as is typical of Apodopsyllus. However, members of the latter genus have the coxa and basis of P2–P4 fused forming a fusiform segment that is much longer than wide. To our knowledge no author noticed that in A. aberrans the coxa and basis are not fused, are wider than long, and that the exopods are inserted laterally. The same conditions occur in the new genus; the P2–P4 of this type are morphologically and functionally different from those of the remaining species of Apodopsyllus, possibly providing a very different locomotion modality. A similar type of swimming legs are present in Leptopsyllus Scott, 1894 and Wellsopsyllus Kunz, 1981, which include species similar to the new ones established in this work (see below). The presence of this type of legs could therefore be a synapomorphic character, shared with other genera, however, Maliithipon gen. nov. has a set of exclusive (autapomorphic?) characters related to the mouthparts, P5 and caudal rami, the most significant being the following: i) Mandibular palp: uniramous and 2-segmented, i.e. composed of basis and endopod, armed with few setae. Cutting edge of coxal gnathobase with long, thin and pointed teeth, the innermost and outermost ones being longer and stronger. ii) Maxillule of simple structure, coxa and basis with few setae, exopod and endopod missing. iii) Maxilla with three endites with reduced armature, the proximal endite can be reduced to a seta; the endopod is 1-segmented and fused to the basis, which is unarmed, at least one of the apical endopodal setae is claw-like. The maxillae are very large compared to the other mouthparts; in lateral view, they typically protrude from the cephalothorax. iv) P5 very reduced in both sexes: in M. aberrans comb. nov. (only females are known for this species) each P5 is represented by two small adjacent plates (one is the baseoendopod, the other the exopod), inserted laterally and carrying respectively one and three setae; in M. cf. aberrans the exopod has three setae in the female but only two in the male, and the endopodal lobe in the male is partly fused with the exopodal lobe to form a structure similar to the one of Wellsopsyllus (Intermediopsyllus) smirnovi. The P5 can be further reduced: in M. wellsi sp. nov. the female has only one lobe (with a small incision, probably representing the boundary between baseoendopod and exopod) with one seta (missing in some specimens), and the male has a single, smaller lobe without setae. v) Pseudoperculum with multilobate posterior margin. vi) Caudal rami always with six setae, with peculiar transformation of setae III and VI. All the above-mentioned characters are absent in the remaining species of Apodopsyllus (A. aberrans excluded), which share with Maliithipon gen. nov. only the morphology of P1, the absence of P2–P4 endopods, and the morphology of P2–P2 exopods. These similarities could be due to parallel evolution; however, the morphology of P2–P4 coxa and basis differs between the two genera. Both genera also share the number of setae on the caudal rami, but setae III and VI are not transformed in Apodopsyllus, which also has a different shape and ornamentation of the body, caudal rami, and genital field. In summary, the unique combination of the above-listed characters does, in our opinion, characterize the new genus and separates it from Apodopsyllus; as a consequence the two species of Apodopsyllus which indeed share such set of characters, i.e. A. aberrans and A. cf. aberrans, are transferred to the new genus Maliithipon as M. aberrans (Mielke, 1984a) comb. nov. and M. cf. aberrans (Mielke, 1984a), respectively. As regards the genera Wellsopsyllus and Leptopsyllu s, the affinities with Maliithipon gen. nov. can be found with some species whose generic attribution is uncertain, according to their authors. As we discussed for Apodopsyllus, there are two unusual species among these genera, i.e. Leptopsyllus (Leptopsyllus) platyspinosus and Wellsopsyllus (Intermediopsullus) smirnovi, which, according to us, have more morphological characters in common with Maliithipon gen. nov. than with their respective congeners. The same applies, but to a lesser degree, to Leptopsyllus (Leptopsyllus) typicus, Wellsopsyllus (Wellsopsyllus) antarcticus Kottmann & Veit-Köhler, 2013, and Biuncus ingens. In Leptopsyllus (L.) platyspinosus the mandible has a uniramous, 2-segmented palp, including an unarmed basis and a 1-segmented endopod carrying four setae; the morphology of the coxal gnathobase and cutting edge are also similar to those of the new genus. The maxillule and maxilla are very similar to those of the new genus (see Mielke 1984b: Fig. 23). The maxillipedal endopod is 2-segmented, there is a pseudoperculum with a bilobate rather than a quadrilobate posterior margin, the P4 has a 1-segmented endopod, the P5 has a reduced baseoendopod and small exopod, carrying three setae, and the genital field and shape and armature of the caudal rami are very similar to those of Maliithipon gen. nov. Leptopsyllus (L.) typicus has not been redescribed according to modern standards, and only the females are known. Nonetheless, the mandibular palp is uniramous, being represented by the basis and the endopod, and the structure of the maxilla (endites with reduced armature, basis prolonged into a claw, a second claw originates from the partially fused endopod) and maxilliped (with 1-segmented endopod) are characters which indicate a degree of affinity with the new genus. The morphology of the maxilla, pseudoperculum and P5 are unknown for this species, the caudal rami differ in shape and ornamentation and the body size of this species is very large (700 μm). Wellsopsyllus (I.) smirnovi has the same transformation/reduction of the mouthparts as in Leptopsyllus (L.) platyspinosus, but the three maxillary endites have more setae than the taxa discussed so far, and the P5, “a small plate with three setae, middle lobe not noticeable” (Kunz 1992), is morphologically similar to the one of the new genus but even simpler: it is reduced to a very small exopod, completely fused to the somite, carrying only two setae. Setae III and IV of the caudal rami are not characteristically transformed, the pseudoperculum seems to be missing but it could have been overlooked by Kunz (1992) who, for the male, described only the subchirocer antennule and did not provide any information on the P5 and P6. This species is remarkably long (510 μm). Wellsopsyllus (W.) antarcticus (1) has a 1-segmented antennary exopod, a uniramous (but 3-segmented) mandibular palp, a maxillule without endopod or exopod and the size and armature of the maxilla are similar to those of Maliithipon gen. nov. Differences with the new genus are expressed in the P2–P4 which have retained the endopod, the genital field with a different structure carrying two setae, the P5 which is not reduced in either sex, the absence of a lobate pseudoperculum and the morphology of the caudal rami. Biuncus ingens is a large species, known only from males, and was included by Huys (1995) in the group of species related to Leptopsyllus based on the mandibular palp (which in Biuncus is simple but retains the exopod, represented by a seta, and the endopod is 2-segmented), the structure and size of the maxilla, and the presence of a lobate pseudoperculum. The analysis of all the above-listed taxa, which are morphologically close to Maliithipon gen. nov., underlines that only the species of this genus share all the above-mentioned characters. These same characters can be present in other Paramesochridae, but never all of them combined in one species. 1 We underline that Kottmann et al. (2013) provided some interesting remarks on the “uncertainties” regarding the systematic and morphology of this genus and subgenera with which we fully agree. Particularly relevant to solving some systematic issues in the Paramesochridae is the analysis of the morphology of mouthparts, P5 and caudal rami. This view is supported by Kottman et al. (2013) who, while discussing affinities among species of Wellsopsyllus, remarked how “at present, the classification is mainly based on the segmentation of the swimming legs, but there are other important characteristics to be considered (e.g., mouthparts, furcal rami)”. More recently, Back & Lee (2017a) discussed the genus Leptopsyllus, underlining how most of the recent classifications for this genus are based on leg characteristics (reduced or absent), and the complete descriptions of mouthparts are lacking for many species. Veit-Köhler (2004, 2005) gave similar remarks for the genus Kliopsyllus (now Emertonia). Already Kunz (1981) stated that in very specialized Paramesochridae with reduced pereiopods, such as Apodopsyllus and Leptopsyllus, the original components of the mouthparts are still recognizable. Later on, Huys (1987) remarked that Wellsopsyllus, Leptopsyllus and Apodopsyllus have undergone paedomorphic evolution and “can easily be included in a morphological series with increasingly pronounced larval characters”. The new genus Maliithipon gen. nov. can be added to this “morphological series” but the species included in the latter and the above-discussed species to which it is most closely related (mainly Leptopsyllus (L.) platyspinosus) can represent a further step which characterizes and separates them from the other components of the evolutionary lineages hypothesized by Huys (1987). Possibly, further studies based also on a molecular approach will allow including them in a phylogenetically-valid group. The discussion of the taxonomic position of Leptopsyllus (L.) platyspinosus and W. (I.) smirnovi is outside the scope of this paper. We, however, suggest that these two species should be considered incertae sedis, as already proposed by Wells (2007) for W. (I.) smirnovi. When and if Wellsopsyllus (I.) smirnovi will be redescribed with more details (the original drawings of Leptopsyllus (L.) platyspinosus are still adequate), it will be possible to include these two species in a taxonomic unit close to Maliithipon gen. nov., or possibly in the same genus appropriately reviewed and divided into subgenera. In fact, it is difficult to suppose that complicated structures as those described above could have evolved independently but in a similar way in different genera. It is worthy to remember that Kunz (1992: 90), while discussing the affinities of W. (I.) smirnovi, stated that “these observations suggest to separate L. platyspinosus, S. smirnovi and S. minutus as a phylogenetically-related group”.

Maliithipon cf. aberrans (Mielke 1984a) = Apodopsyllus aberrans Mielke 1984a in Packmor et al. (2015) and Packmor & George (2016) (Figs. 6–11) Material examined. Two male and four female specimens, each one undissected and mounted on one slide labelled respectively: Apodopsyllus aberrans, adult female. Prainha, ST 1/3 (Madeira Island); Apodopsyllus aberrans, adult female, Prainha, ST 1/4 (Madeira Island); Apodopsyllus aberrans, adult male. Prainha, ST 1/6 (Madeira Island); Apodopsyllus aberrans, adult male. Calheta, ST1/1 (Madeira Island); Apodopsyllus aberrans, adult female, Puerto Santo Island East, ST 3/6; Apodopsyllus aberrans, adult female, Puerto Santo Island East, ST 3/6. Details on the collecting methods, collecting sites and dates in Packmor et al. (2015). Description of female. Habitus (Fig. 6A). Body unpigmented, elongate, cylindrical and slightly depressed dorsoventrally, naupliar eye absent. Length 228 μm, n = 4, mean = 229 μm. Last urosomites tapering posteriorly. Free pedigerous somites without any lateral or dorsal expansions, all connected by well-developed arthrodial membranes. Ventrolateral margin of first, second, and fourth free thoracic somites with row of denticles (Fig. 6B). Integument weakly sclerotized, without cuticular pits. First pedigerous somite and dorsal cephalic shield fused forming cephalothorax representing about 26% of total body length. Cephalothorax and somites with few sensilla and several pores on dorsal, lateral and ventral surfaces (pores were difficult to observe, their pattern could not be precisely determined). Second and third urosomite completely fused to form genital double-somite. Penultimate body somite without sensilla, carrying a fine, well developed lobate pseudoperculum (Figs. 6A, 7C). Anal somite small, with pair of dorsal sensilla (Fig. 7B); anal operculum not visible. Genital field (Fig. 6C–D) small, ellipsoidal with two small lateral lobes, located mid-ventrally and at mid-length of the genital double-somite, surrounded by eight pores of different size; P6 not discernible (morphology probably as in M. wellsi). Caudal rami (Fig. 7 °–B). Parallel, slightly longer than the last urosomite; length: 14 μm; length/width: 1.8. Approximately rectangular in shape, slightly tapering posteriorly, the distal outer corner is prolonged in a ventral cuticular outgrowth; armature represented by six setae (seta I apparently missing): seta II short and very thin, seta III stout and pointed, unipinnate along approximately one/fifth of the distal outer margin; seta IV unipinnate, seta V bare and very reduced; seta VI as seta III but shorter; seta VII bare, bi-articulate at base and arising distally at two-thirds of the ramus length. Rostrum (Fig. 6A, 8A). Small, approximately triangular, with round tip, fused to cephalic shield, armed with two sensilla. Antennule (Fig. 8A–B). Short, robust, 8-segmented. First segment longest, without armature; second segment with ten setae, four of which pinnate, the one on the outer distal corner longest. Third segment provided with two pinnate and five bare setae. Inner distal corner of fourth segment forming a sub-cylindrical process carrying a long and thick aesthetasc fused at base with one long bare seta, and two short, basally-enlarged setae, the outer one pinnate. Fifth segment smallest, with one bare seta. Sixth segment with two bare setae; seventh segment with one bare and one pinnate seta. Eighth segment with seven bare setae and one pinnate and acrothek formed by a slender aesthetasc and a seta fused at base. Armature formula: 1–[0], 2–[6 bare + 4 pinnate], 3–[5 bare + 2 pinnate], 4–[1 bare + 1 pinnate + (1 + ae)], 5–[1 bare], 6–[2 bare], 7–[1 bare + 1 pinnate], 8–[8 bare + 1 pinnate + acrothek]. Antenna (Fig. 8C–D). 4-segmented; coxa small and bare; basis approximately twice longer than wide, without any surface ornamentation; exopod (Fig. 8D) 1-segmented, with two bare setae laterally, one pinnate seta and one short spine apically. Endopod 2-segmented, proximal segment with one pinnate abexopodal seta; distal endopodal segment armed with two subdistal bare spiniform setae, distal margin carrying three bare geniculate setae and three bare normal setae, one of which very short. Mandible (Fig. 8E). Coxa long and narrow, with well-developed gnathobase bearing one bare seta at dorsal corner; cutting edge provided with three apical needle-like teeth, one long pointed tooth on inner and on outer corner, one tooth has double the size of the other. Palp reduced, 2-segmented, comprising roundish basis, 1-segmented endopod with one seta, one pinnate spiniform seta, and one spinule distally, and one lateral unipinnate spiniform seta. Maxillule (Fig. 8F). Difficult to discern. All setae bare. Praecoxal arthrite roundish, with one seta at half of the lateral margin (marked with asterisk in Fig. 8F), two thin and two stronger setae at distal margin. Coxa prolonged in a cylindrical endite with two apical setae; basis with one apical seta. Exopod and endopod missing. Maxilla (Fig. 9A). Overall very large compared to the other mouthparts (in lateral view, it projects from the cephalothoracic margin); syncoxa with three endites, proximal one small with one apical pinnate seta, median endite small with one apical pinnate seta, distal coxal endite with two apical bare setae. Allobasis prolonged into strong denticled claw; endopod fused to basis and armed with four strong setae distally. Maxilliped (Fig. 9C). 3-segmented, comprising syncoxa, basis, and 1-segmented endopod; syncoxa bare, basis slightly longer than coxa and bare; endopod short, distally one normal and two slightly geniculated bare setae. P1 (Fig. 9D). Intercoxal sclerite long and thin, slightly concave; coxa bare, well-developed; basis without outer seta, with bare inner seta at half length of the inner margin; exopod and endopod 2-segmented, exopod slightly shorter than endopod. First exopodal segment longer than the second one, with spinular row along outer margin, strong pinnate seta on distal outer corner; second segment with spinular row along outer margin, four distal pinnate setae, the innermost is the longest. First endopodal segment bare, 2.5 times longer than the second one, with spinules along outer margin; second segment with spinules along the distal part of the outer margin, two long geniculate apical setae. P2–P4. (Figs. 9E–F, 10A). Intercoxal sclerites long and thin. P2 basis with small bare outer seta and with a row of spinules on inner margin; P3 and P4 basis with outer pinnate seta. Exopods 3-segmented, first, second and third segments with spinular row along outer margin and outer unipinnate, curved spine at distal corner, longest in P4 exp-2; third segment also with apical long geniculate pinnate seta. Endopods missing. Setal formula provided in Table 1. P5 (Fig. 6C). Reduced to two adjacent lobed plates laterally inserted; the outermost plate with a pinnate seta (ancestral basal seta), the innermost plate, roundish, with three setae, the longest middle one unipinnate. Description of male. General body shape and ornamentation as in female, but slightly smaller and more slender, body length 220 μm; prosome to urosome ratio: 0.85. Last urosomites tapering posteriorly. Cephalothorax representing about 25% of total body length. Antenna, Mdb, Mxl, Mx, Mxp, P1–P4 (Figs. 10D, 11–C) as in female. Sexual dimorphism in separation of genital somite, A1, P5, and P6, ventrolateral margin of free thoracic somites without row of denticles; P2 basis ornamentation, P3–P4 basis armature; P4 exp-2 armature.Anal somite small, anal operculum and dorsal sensilla of the anal somite not visible. Caudal rami (Fig. 11E). Shape and armature as in female but proportionally longer and thinner (length/width = 2). Antennule (Fig. 10C). Strong, short, subchirocer, 7-segmented. First segment without distal seta, as in female; second segment with long lateral seta, as in female, two short pinnate lateral setae, five bare setae. Third segment with four bare setae of different lengths, one short pinnate seta. Fourth segment small, with two short setae; fifth segment enlarged, square, with long aesthetasc fused at base with long seta. Fifth segment with lateral tubercle carrying one thick esthetasc and two setae of same length; inner distal corner produced in a tubercle carrying one bare seta and three shorter ones, the middle one is enlarged in the first half and pinnate. Sixth segment with one long and three short setae, one of which pinnate; seventh segment with eight bare setae and one small seta fused to aesthetasc to form apical acrothek. Armature formula: 1–[0], 2–[6 bare + 2 pinnate], 3–[4 bare + 1 pinnate], 4–[2 bare], 5–[4 bare + 1 pinnate + (1 + ae)], 6–[3 bare +1 pinnate], 7–[8 bare + acrothek]. P2 (Fig. 11A). Basis without inner row of spinules. P3 (Fig. 11B). Basis with outer bare seta. P4 (Fig. 11C). Basis with outer bare seta; exp-2 with distal spine of normal size. P5 (Fig. 10E). Similar to female but the two lobes are merged, smaller, and with bare setae; the exopod is merged with the somite and carries two setae (one less seta than in the female). P6 (Fig. 11D) represented by two asymmetrical (the right one is larger) roundish plates with one seta, the one on the right is longer. Spermatophore (Fig. 11D). Ellipsoidal, approximately as long as the somite carrying the P5. Variability. In one female paratype the maxillary distal endite is longer and carries three setae instead of two (Fig. 9B). In a second female paratype the P5 exopod carries one seta less (Fig. 10B) and setae IV and V on the caudal rami are normally developed (Fig. 7C). In one male seta V is normal on the right caudal ramus, and extremely reduced on the left caudal ramus (Fig. 11F). Remarks. Since the description of the new genus Maliithipon is based exclusively on morphological characters, M. cf. aberrans can be included in the new genus (Table 1). Females and males of M. cf. aberrans can be distinguished from those of M. wellsi sp. nov. by easily-observable characters, e.g. the caudal rami, P5 and P6. The distinction of M. cf. aberrans from M. aberrans comb. nov. is more difficult, mainly due to the lack of males in the type series of M. aberrans. As a consequence, the males collected in the Azores, initially listed as A. aberrans in Packmor et al. (2015) and Packmor & George (2016), cannot be compared with males of the type series, and could potentially belong to a different taxon. However, because the females collected in the Azores share the main discriminant features with M. aberrans, but differ in some minor features which are more difficult to observe (Table 1), we have chosen to be more conservative in the attribution of the taxonomic status to this population of Maliithipon, and not to follow Packmor et al. (2015) and Packmor & George (2016). The discovery of new populations, or the availability of new knowledge on the taxonomy of the existing populations (based for instance on scanning and/or confocal laser scanning microscopy; developmental study, molecular analysis) will hopefully allow to attribute a final taxonomic status to this taxon., Published as part of Cottarelli, Vezio & Bruno, Maria Cristina, 2021, Interesting interstitial Paramesochridae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida): Maliithipon wellsi gen. et sp. nov. from the Philippines, M. aberrans (Mielke, 1984) comb. nov from Panama, and M. cf. aberrans (Mielke, 1984) from the Azores, pp. 68-93 in Zootaxa 5051 (1) on pages 80-82, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5051.1.7, http://zenodo.org/record/5564063, {"references":["Mielke, W. (1984 a) Einige Paramesochridae (Copepoda) von Panama. Spixiana, 7, 217 - 243.","Packmor, J., Muller, F. & George, K. H. (2015) Oceanic islands and seamounts as staging posts for Copepoda Harpacticoida (Crustacea) - Shallow-water Paramesochridae Lang, 1944 from the North-East Atlantic Ocean, including the redescription of three species and one subspecies from the Madeiran Archipelago. Progress in Oceanography, 131, 59 - 81. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. pocean. 2014.11.012","Packmor, J. & George, K. H. (2016) Littoral Harpacticoida (Crustacea: Copepoda) of Madeira and Porto Santo (Portugal). Journal of the marine biological Association of the United Kingdom, 98, 171 - 182. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315416001168"]}

Genus Maliithipon gen. nov. zoobank.org:act: 3C6CE0CB-4E60-4257-8C14-4C2FF804DBB2 Diagnosis. Body elongate, cylindrical, slightly depressed dorsoventrally and slightly tapering distally. No distinct separation between prosome and urosome. Cephalotorax approximately quadrangular, larger than somites, longer than the following two somites, with sensilla and several dorsal pores. Dorsal pores present also on the remaining somites. Genital complex of female: genital field small, transversally oval, ventrally at half length of the double genital somite which lacks dorsal suture; P6 reduced to two small arched chitinous plates, apparently not fused; genital pore near the distal margin of the genital field, below the P6. Penultimate somite with well-developed quadrilobate pseudoperculum. Caudal rami approximately cylindrical, tapering distally in lateral view, apparently with six setae. Seta I missing (or not discernible), seta III and VI enlarged and pointed, unipinnate in the distal third on the outer (seta III) or inner (seta VI) margin. Distal setae (IV and V) variable in shape, peculiarly transformed in short fusiform structures in some specimens; seta VII dorsally inserted at 2/3 of the ramus length, biarticulate at base. Rostrum small, triangular, fused to cephalothorax, with two sensilla. Antennule 8-segmented in female, with large aesthetasc on segment four and small easthetasc on segment eight. Antennule 7-segmented in male, short, subchirocer, aesthetasc on segments V and VII. Antenna 4-segmented; coxa and basis without ornamentation, enp-1 with strong pinnate abexopodal seta, enp-2 armed with eight elements; exopod 1-segmented with two lateral setae and one or two distal ones, the longest one pinnate. Mandible with uniramous and 2-segmented palp comprising basis, 1-segmented endopod with four setae or three setae and one spine. Coxal gnathobase long, with dorsal seta; cutting edge with a row of thin and pointed teeth along the distal margin, with a stronger tooth at the inner and outer corner. Maxillula: praecoxal arthrite with strong lateral seta and 5-6 distal spiniform setae; coxa with one or two distal setae, basis with one or two to three apical setae; exopod and endopod missing. Maxilla large, with reduced chaetotaxy; syncoxa with three endites: proximal and median ones with one seta, distal one with two or three pinnate setae; basis produced into strong claw; endopod fused with basipodite, carrying four setae, one or two of which are claw-like. Maxilliped: subchelate, syncoxa bare; basis elongate and bare; endopod 1- or 2-segmented. P1: coxa large and bare, basis without outer basal seta, with strong inner seta; rami 2-segmented, endopod slightly longer than exopod, or of about equal length; exp-1 with long pinnate outer seta, exp-2 with four setae; enp-2 with two geniculate apical setae. P2-P4 laterally displaced but coxa and basis not fused and not markedly produced laterally; basis with outer seta. P2 basis with inner setular row in females; exopods 3-segmented, with two spiniform setae on distal segment; endopods absent. P5 very reduced in both sexes, partly incorporated in somite. In females, baseoendopod represented by a lobe with a lateral seta, exopod reduced to a minute subrectangular lobe with two bare and one pinnate setae or exopod reduced to a lobe with one seta. In males, baseoendopodal lobe with one seta, exopodal lobe with two setae or reduced to a small lobe without armature. P 6 in male reduced to two asymmetrical round plates with one or no seta. Type species. Maliithipon wellsi gen. et sp. nov. (by original designation). Other species. Apodopsyllus aberrans Mielke, 1984a = Maliithipon aberrans (Mielke, 1984a) comb. nov.; Apodopsyllus aberrans Mielke, 1984a in Packmor et al. (2015) and Packmor & George (2016) = Malliithipon cf. aberrans (Mielke, 1984a). Etymology. The generic name is derived from two Tagalog (the official language of the Philippines) words: “maliit” meaning small, and “hipon” meaning shrimp. Gender: masculine. Relationships. Based on the existing classifications, M. wellsi sp. nov. could have been included in the genus Apodopsyllus, as we did when we first examined our specimens, and as it had occurred for the specimens collected from the locus typicus and the Azores (Packmor et al. 2015; Packmor & George 2016). In fact, M. wellsi sp. nov. lacks the endopods of swimming legs P2–P4, as is typical of Apodopsyllus. However, members of the latter genus have the coxa and basis of P2–P4 fused forming a fusiform segment that is much longer than wide. To our knowledge no author noticed that in A. aberrans the coxa and basis are not fused, are wider than long, and that the exopods are inserted laterally. The same conditions occur in the new genus; the P2–P4 of this type are morphologically and functionally different from those of the remaining species of Apodopsyllus, possibly providing a very different locomotion modality. A similar type of swimming legs are present in Leptopsyllus Scott, 1894 and Wellsopsyllus Kunz, 1981, which include species similar to the new ones established in this work (see below). The presence of this type of legs could therefore be a synapomorphic character, shared with other genera, however, Maliithipon gen. nov. has a set of exclusive (autapomorphic?) characters related to the mouthparts, P5 and caudal rami, the most significant being the following: i) Mandibular palp: uniramous and 2-segmented, i.e. composed of basis and endopod, armed with few setae. Cutting edge of coxal gnathobase with long, thin and pointed teeth, the innermost and outermost ones being longer and stronger. ii) Maxillule of simple structure, coxa and basis with few setae, exopod and endopod missing. iii) Maxilla with three endites with reduced armature, the proximal endite can be reduced to a seta; the endopod is 1-segmented and fused to the basis, which is unarmed, at least one of the apical endopodal setae is claw-like. The maxillae are very large compared to the other mouthparts; in lateral view, they typically protrude from the cephalothorax. iv) P5 very reduced in both sexes: in M. aberrans comb. nov. (only females are known for this species) each P5 is represented by two small adjacent plates (one is the baseoendopod, the other the exopod), inserted laterally and carrying respectively one and three setae; in M. cf. aberrans the exopod has three setae in the female but only two in the male, and the endopodal lobe in the male is partly fused with the exopodal lobe to form a structure similar to the one of Wellsopsyllus (Intermediopsyllus) smirnovi. The P5 can be further reduced: in M. wellsi sp. nov. the female has only one lobe (with a small incision, probably representing the boundary between baseoendopod and exopod) with one seta (missing in some specimens), and the male has a single, smaller lobe without setae. v) Pseudoperculum with multilobate posterior margin. vi) Caudal rami always with six setae, with peculiar transformation of setae III and VI. All the above-mentioned characters are absent in the remaining species of Apodopsyllus (A. aberrans excluded), which share with Maliithipon gen. nov. only the morphology of P1, the absence of P2–P4 endopods, and the morphology of P2–P2 exopods. These similarities could be due to parallel evolution; however, the morphology of P2–P4 coxa and basis differs between the two genera. Both genera also share the number of setae on the caudal rami, but setae III and VI are not transformed in Apodopsyllus, which also has a different shape and ornamentation of the body, caudal rami, and genital field. In summary, the unique combination of the above-listed characters does, in our opinion, characterize the new genus and separates it from Apodopsyllus; as a consequence the two species of Apodopsyllus which indeed share such set of characters, i.e. A. aberrans and A. cf. aberrans, are transferred to the new genus Maliithipon as M. aberrans (Mielke, 1984a) comb. nov. and M. cf. aberrans (Mielke, 1984a), respectively. As regards the genera Wellsopsyllus and Leptopsyllu s, the affinities with Maliithipon gen. nov. can be found with some species whose generic attribution is uncertain, according to their authors. As we discussed for Apodopsyllus, there are two unusual species among these genera, i.e. Leptopsyllus (Leptopsyllus) platyspinosus and Wellsopsyllus (Intermediopsullus) smirnovi, which, according to us, have more morphological characters in common with Maliithipon gen. nov. than with their respective congeners. The same applies, but to a lesser degree, to Leptopsyllus (Leptopsyllus) typicus, Wellsopsyllus (Wellsopsyllus) antarcticus Kottmann & Veit-Köhler, 2013, and Biuncus ingens. In Leptopsyllus (L.) platyspinosus the mandible has a uniramous, 2-segmented palp, including an unarmed basis and a 1-segmented endopod carrying four setae; the morphology of the coxal gnathobase and cutting edge are also similar to those of the new genus. The maxillule and maxilla are very similar to those of the new genus (see Mielke 1984b: Fig. 23). The maxillipedal endopod is 2-segmented, there is a pseudoperculum with a bilobate rather than a quadrilobate posterior margin, the P4 has a 1-segmented endopod, the P5 has a reduced baseoendopod and small exopod, carrying three setae, and the genital field and shape and armature of the caudal rami are very similar to those of Maliithipon gen. nov. Leptopsyllus (L.) typicus has not been redescribed according to modern standards, and only the females are known. Nonetheless, the mandibular palp is uniramous, being represented by the basis and the endopod, and the structure of the maxilla (endites with reduced armature, basis prolonged into a claw, a second claw originates from the partially fused endopod) and maxilliped (with 1-segmented endopod) are characters which indicate a degree of affinity with the new genus. The morphology of the maxilla, pseudoperculum and P5 are unknown for this species, the caudal rami differ in shape and ornamentation and the body size of this species is very large (700 μm). Wellsopsyllus (I.) smirnovi has the same transformation/reduction of the mouthparts as in Leptopsyllus (L.) platyspinosus, but the three maxillary endites have more setae than the taxa discussed so far, and the P5, “a small plate with three setae, middle lobe not noticeable” (Kunz 1992), is morphologically similar to the one of the new genus but even simpler: it is reduced to a very small exopod, completely fused to the somite, carrying only two setae. Setae III and IV of the caudal rami are not characteristically transformed, the pseudoperculum seems to be missing but it could have been overlooked by Kunz (1992) who, for the male, described only the subchirocer antennule and did not provide any information on the P5 and P6. This species is remarkably long (510 μm). Wellsopsyllus (W.) antarcticus (1) has a 1-segmented antennary exopod, a uniramous (but 3-segmented) mandibular palp, a maxillule without endopod or exopod and the size and armature of the maxilla are similar to those of Maliithipon gen. nov. Differences with the new genus are expressed in the P2–P4 which have retained the endopod, the genital field with a different structure carrying two setae, the P5 which is not reduced in either sex, the absence of a lobate pseudoperculum and the morphology of the caudal rami. Biuncus ingens is a large species, known only from males, and was included by Huys (1995) in the group of species related to Leptopsyllus based on the mandibular palp (which in Biuncus is simple but retains the exopod, represented by a seta, and the endopod is 2-segmented), the structure and size of the maxilla, and the presence of a lobate pseudoperculum. The analysis of all the above-listed taxa, which are morphologically close to Maliithipon gen. nov., underlines that only the species of this genus share all the above-mentioned characters. These same characters can be present in other Paramesochridae, but never all of them combined in one species. 1 We underline that Kottmann et al. (2013) provided some interesting remarks on the “uncertainties” regarding the systematic and morphology of this genus and subgenera with which we fully agree. Particularly relevant to solving some systematic issues in the Paramesochridae is the analysis of the morphology of mouthparts, P5 and caudal rami. This view is supported by Kottman et al. (2013) who, while discussing affinities among species of Wellsopsyllus, remarked how “at present, the classification is mainly based on the segmentation of the swimming legs, but there are other important characteristics to be considered (e.g., mouthparts, furcal rami)”. More recently, Back & Lee (2017a) discussed the genus Leptopsyllus, underlining how most of the recent classifications for this genus are based on leg characteristics (reduced or absent), and the complete descriptions of mouthparts are lacking for many species. Veit-Köhler (2004, 2005) gave similar remarks for the genus Kliopsyllus (now Emertonia). Already Kunz (1981) stated that in very specialized Paramesochridae with reduced pereiopods, such as Apodopsyllus and Leptopsyllus, the original components of the mouthparts are still recognizable. Later on, Huys (1987) remarked that Wellsopsyllus, Leptopsyllus and Apodopsyllus have undergone paedomorphic evolution and “can easily be included in a morphological series with increasingly pronounced larval characters”. The new genus Maliithipon gen. nov. can be added to this “morphological series” but the species included in the latter and the above-discussed species to which it is most closely related (mainly Leptopsyllus (L.) platyspinosus) can represent a further step which characterizes and separates them from the other components of the evolutionary lineages hypothesized by Huys (1987). Possibly, further studies based also on a molecular approach will allow including them in a phylogenetically-valid group. The discussion of the taxonomic position of Leptopsyllus (L.) platyspinosus and W. (I.) smirnovi is outside the scope of this paper. We, however, suggest that these two species should be considered incertae sedis, as already proposed by Wells (2007) for W. (I.) smirnovi. When and if Wellsopsyllus (I.) smirnovi will be redescribed with more details (the original drawings of Leptopsyllus (L.) platyspinosus are still adequate), it will be possible to include these two species in a taxonomic unit close to Maliithipon gen. nov., or possibly in the same genus appropriately reviewed and divided into subgenera. In fact, it is difficult to suppose that complicated structures as those described above could have evolved independently but in a similar way in different genera. It is worthy to remember that Kunz (1992: 90), while discussing the affinities of W. (I.) smirnovi, stated that “these observations suggest to separate L. platyspinosus, S. smirnovi and S. minutus as a phylogenetically-related group”., Published as part of Cottarelli, Vezio & Bruno, Maria Cristina, 2021, Interesting interstitial Paramesochridae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida): Maliithipon wellsi gen. et sp. nov. from the Philippines, M. aberrans (Mielke, 1984) comb. nov from Panama, and M. cf. aberrans (Mielke, 1984) from the Azores, pp. 68-93 in Zootaxa 5051 (1) on pages 70-73, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5051.1.7, http://zenodo.org/record/5564063, {"references":["Mielke, W. (1984 a) Einige Paramesochridae (Copepoda) von Panama. Spixiana, 7, 217 - 243.","Packmor, J., Muller, F. & George, K. H. (2015) Oceanic islands and seamounts as staging posts for Copepoda Harpacticoida (Crustacea) - Shallow-water Paramesochridae Lang, 1944 from the North-East Atlantic Ocean, including the redescription of three species and one subspecies from the Madeiran Archipelago. Progress in Oceanography, 131, 59 - 81. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. pocean. 2014.11.012","Packmor, J. & George, K. H. (2016) Littoral Harpacticoida (Crustacea: Copepoda) of Madeira and Porto Santo (Portugal). Journal of the marine biological Association of the United Kingdom, 98, 171 - 182. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315416001168","Scott, T. (1894) Additions to the fauna of the Firth of Forth. Part VI. Reports of the Fishery Board for Scotland, Edinburgh, 12 (3), 231 - 271.","Kunz, H. (1981) Beitrag zur Systematik der Paramesochridae (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) mit Beschreibung einiger neuen Arten. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum der Universitat Kiel, 1 (8), 2 - 33.","Mielke, W. (1984 b) Interstitielle Fauna von Galapagos. XXXI. Paramesochridae (Harpacticoida). Microfauna marina, 1, 63 - 147.","Kunz, H. (1992) Beitrag zur Kenntnis mariner Copepoda Harpacticoida (Fam. Paramesochridae Lang) mit Beschreibung zweier neuer Arten und einer neuen Unterart. Crustaceana, 62, 85 - 97. https: // doi. org / 10.1163 / 156854092 X 00073","Huys, R. (1995) A new genus of Paramesochridae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida) from Amphioxus - sand, Elat, Israel. Journal of natural History, 29, 673 - 684. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222939500770231","Kottmann J., Kihara, T. C., Glatzel, T. & Veit-Koehler, G. (2013) A new species of Wellsopsyllus (Copepoda, Harpacticoida, Paramesochridae) from the deep Southern Ocean and remarks on its biogeography. Helgoland marine Research, 67, 33 - 48. https: // doi. org / 10.1007 / s 10152 - 012 - 0302 - 7","Back, J. & Lee, W. (2017 a) Two new species of Leptopsyllus from Korea (Copepoda, Harpacticoida, Paramesochridae). ZooKeys, 665, 37 - 57. https: // doi. org / 10.3897 / zookeys. 665.6150","Veit-Kohler, G. (2004) Kliopsyllus andeep sp. n. (Copepoda: Harpacticoida) from the Antarctic deep sea - a copepod closely related to certain shallow-water species. Deep-Sea Research II, 51, 1629 - 1641. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. dsr 2.2004.06.027","Veit-Kohler, G. (2005) First deep-sea record of the genus Kliopsyllus Kunz, 1962 (Copepoda: Harpacticoida) with the description of Kliopsyllus diva sp. n. - the most abundant member of Paramesochridae at two different sites of the Angola Basin. Organisms, Diversity and Evolution, 5, 29 - 41. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ode. 2004.10.003","Huys, R. (1987) Paramesochra Scott, T. 1892 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) - a revised key, including a new species from the SW Dutch coast and some remarks on the phylogeny of the Paramesochridae. Hydrobiologia, 144, 193 - 210. https: // doi. org / 10.1007 / BF 00005554","Wells, J. B. J. (2007) An annotated checklist and keys to the species of Copepoda Harpacticoida (Crustacea). Zootaxa, 1568 (1), 1 - 872. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 1568.1.1"]}

How cells respond to different external cues to develop along defined cell lineages to form complex tissues is a major question in systems biology. Here, we investigated the potential of retinoic acid receptor (RARs)-selective synthetic agonists to activate the gene-regulatory programs driving cell specialization during nervous tissue formation from P19 stem cells. Specifically, we found that the synergistic activation of the RARβ and RARγ by selective ligands (BMS641 or BMS961) induces cell maturation to specialized neuronal subtypes, as well as to astrocytes and oligodendrocyte precursors.Using RAR istoype knockout lines exposed to RAR-specific agonists, interrogated by global transcriptome landscaping and in silico modeling of transcription regulatory signal propagation, revealed major RARα−driven gene programs essential for optimal neuronal cell specialization, and hijacked by the synergistic activation of the RARβ and RARγ receptors.Overall, this study provides a systems biology view of the gene programs accounting for the previously observed redundancy between RAR receptors, paving the way towards their potential use for directing cell specialization during nervous tissue formation.

Chitosan is a natural heterogeneous polymer, non-toxic and find many potential applications in agriculture. The search of a biopolymer to replace the synthetic agrochemicals, the effects of foliar application of chitosan solution on agronomic performance under field experiments have been investigated in two consecutive harvests (2014/2015 and 2015) of soybean and maize. Two chitosan concentrations (0.5 and 1%) were sprayed four times during the culture development and the evaluation was based on morphological characteristics, growth and yield components. Seeds were collected to determine the content of macro- and micronutrients. Results revealed that most of the morphological and growth parameters (plant height, leaf number per plant) and yield attributes were not increased with the chitosan treatment in soybean and maize. The soybean treated with foliar application of chitosan 0.5% increased the accumulation of nitrogen by 9.14% when compared with the water treatment, but the effect was not consistent in both seasons and cultivars. The values of the other nutrients did not change the content. Maize plants treated with chitosan (0.5% or 1%) significantly decreased the boron concentration by 66.7% in the grains analyzed and may have influenced the plant development (height) without altering the other agronomic parameters. Therefore, whereas the climatic conditions in these two seasons were stable and biotic or abiotic stresses were not observed, foliar application of chitosan solution did not present differences that could establish a pattern of behavior in field experiments conducted by two harvests.

Additional file 1.

SummaryDevelopments on spatial transcriptomics (ST) are providing means to interrogate organ/tissue architecture from the angle of the gene programs defining their molecular complexity. However, computational methods to analyze ST data under-exploits the spatial signature retrieved within the maps. Inspired by contextual pixel classification strategies applied to image analysis, we have developed MULTILAYER, allowing to stratify ST maps into functionally-relevant molecular substructures. For it, MULTILAYER applies agglomerative clustering strategies within contiguous locally-defined transcriptomes (herein defined as gene expression elements or Gexels), combined with community detection methods for graph partitioning.MULTILAYER has been evaluated over multiple public ST data, including developmental tissues but also tumor biopsies. Its performance has been challenged for the processing of high-resolution ST maps and it has been used for an enhanced comparison of multiple public tissue biopsies issued from a cancerous prostate.MULTILAYER provides a digital perspective for the analysis of spatially-resolved transcriptomes and anticipates the application of contextual gexel classification strategies for developing self-supervised molecular diagnostics solutions.Overall, the development of MULTILAYER anticipates the application of contextual gexel classification strategies for developing self-supervised molecular diagnostics solutions.

Stammericaris vincentimariae Bruno & Cottarelli sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: AD8C5160-A007-4D29-974F-12925EAD0CA7 Figs 9–11, 12a; Tables 1–3 Diagnosis Stammericaris vincentimariae Bruno & Cottarelli sp. nov. is characterized in males primarily by the presence of one seta on the 7 th antennular segment and by the morphology of the P4: the innermost spinule of the basis inner row is inserted transversally instead of longitudinally; the enp curved plate tip is bifid instead of pointy and the distal outgrowth is flattened instead of being a seta. Females are characterized by the enp P3 much shorter than half of the first corresponding exp-1. Both sexes are characterized by caudal rami with a strong apical pointed apophysis. Etymology The species epithet is the genitive of the Latin first names Vincentius and Maria (Vincent and Mary in English), the names of the son and daughter of one of the authors (RG), in recognition of the great interest shown to speleology from their childhood onward and for participating in some of the collection campaigns. Material examined Holotype ITALY • ♂; Cosenza Province, Cassano allo Ionio, Grotta dello Scoglio, pool 1; approximate coordinates 39°47′9.38ʺ N, 16°18′31.89ʺ E; 25 Apr. 2015; R. Grasso and M.T. Spena leg.; dissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Stammericaris vincentimariae holotype: male”; NHMUK 2020.33. Paratypes ITALY • 2 ♂♂; same collection data as for holotype but pool 2; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Stammericaris vincentimariae paratype: male”; NHMUK 2020.34 to 2020.35 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; dissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Stammericaris vincentimariae paratype: male”; NHMUK 2020.36 • 3 ♂♂; same collection data as for holotype; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Stammericaris vincentimariae paratype: male”; NHMUK 2020.37 to 2020.39 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for holotype; dissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Stammericaris vincentimariae paratype: female”; NHMUK 2020.40. Description Adult male BODY. Unpigmented, nauplius eye absent. Total body length, measured from tip of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami (excluding caudal setae) from 295 to 334 µm, mean 310 μm (n = 5). Habitus cylindrical and slender, without any demarcation between prosome and urosome; prosome to urosome ratio: 0.80. Free pedigerous somites without any lateral or dorsal expansions, all connected by welldeveloped arthrodial membranes. Integument weakly sclerotized, without cuticular pits, ornamented with sensilla on all somites except preanal one. Cuticular windows on urosomites (Figs 10j, 11a) and cephalothorax not visible. Cephalothorax representing about 18 % of total body length. Anal somite (Fig. 9 a–b) with pair of large dorsal sensilla at base of anal operculum, pair of cuticular lateral pores (one pore on each side) on proximal margin. Anal operculum (Fig. 9 a–b) well developed, with straight distal margin. Anal sinus wide open. Spermatophore as in Fig. 10j. CAUDAL RAMI (Fig. 9 a–b). Shorter than anal somite, approximately cylindrical, with strong dorsal pointed apophysis, length to width ratio: 2.7. Anterolateral accessory seta (I) and anterolateral seta (III) subequal in length, posterolateral seta (III) short, all setae inserted together distally at ¾ length of caudal ramus. Outer terminal seta (IV) long and pinnate (length seta/length caudal ramus: 1.4), inserted subterminally; inner terminal seta (V) without fracture plane. Terminal accessory seta (VI) short (length seta/length caudal ramus: 0.6) and smooth. Dorsal seta (VII) articulate, inserted distally at ¾ length of the caudal ramus. ROSTRUM (Fig. 9d). Small, not demarcated at base, almost reaching distal margin of first antennulary segment, ornamented with two dorsal sensilla. A1 (Fig. 9 c–d). Prehensile, eight-segmented, pocket-knife type sensu Schminke (2010). First segment short; second segment longest, with seven setae, the longest seta unipinnate; third segment with four distal bare setae; fourth segment reduced to small sclerite with two short setae; fifth segment enlarged with inner round expansion with deep incision (arrowed in Fig. 9 c–d) and one seta at base of distal tubercle with two long subequal setae and one large aesthetasc, reaching past end of eighth segment. Sixth segment bare, partially fused to previous one. Seventh segment with one small seta, distal anterior corner protruding as curved apophysis ending in tip. Eighth segment with seven setae and apical acrothek represented by two setae and slender long aesthetasc. Armature formula: 1-[0], 2-[1 uniplumose + 6 bare], 3-[4 bare], 4-[2 bare], 5-[3 bare + ae], 6-[0], 7-[1 bare], 8-[7 bare + (2 bare + ae)]. A2 (Fig. 9e). Coxa unarmed; allobasis with two transverse row of spinules on inner margin. Exp represented by small segment merged with allobasis, with bipinnate apical seta. Enp bearing two spines along inner margin, one short subdistal inner spine, one subdistal outer transformed seta, two geniculate setae and one spine apically, all spines unipinnate, all elements with long spinules near their insertions except proximalmost inner spines. MDB (Fig. 9f). Coxal gnathobase with lateral pinnate short seta, cutting edge with apical teeth. Onesegmented palp, with two distal setae of different length. MX 1 (Fig. 9h). Praecoxal arthrite with three apical curved robust spines apically denticled, one subdistal curved seta. Coxal endite long, with one apical seta. Basis cylindrical, with three distal bare setae. Enp and exp absent (fused to basis without trace). MX 2 (Fig. 9g). Basis with two endites, proximal endite short, with one thin, bare seta; distal endite cylindrical, longer, armed apically with two subequal thin bare setae and one transformed, leaf-like pinnate seta; proximal endopodal segment drawn into apical unipinnate claw; distal endopodal segment with two long setae of equal length. MXP (Fig. 9i). Subchelate, composed of small and unarmed syncoxa, basis slim and elongate, unarmed, 1-segmented enp fused to claw-like apical seta. P1 (Fig. 9 j–k). With smooth and small intercoxal sclerite; coxa bare. Basis large, armed with single slender seta on outer margin, and small seta and lamellar hook on inner margin of basis near enp insertion. Exp three-segmented, slightly shorter than enp; exp-1 with thin unipinnate spine on outer distal corner; exp-2 shortest and unarmed; exp-3 with two geniculate and one normal unipinnate apical setae, and one subapical unipinnate spine. Enp two-segmented; enp-1 longer than first two segments of corresponding exp, with one transversal row of spinules on outer margin, and three on inner margin. Enp-2 thinner and shorter than enp-1, with two spinules at ¼ of inner margin; long, geniculate unipinnate seta, and shorter unipinnate seta on apex. P2 (Fig. 10a). With smooth and small intercoxal sclerite, three times as wide as long, with slightly concave distal margin. Coxa bare. Basis unarmed, with row of four spinules on outer margin. Exp three-segmented, exp-1 longest, with three transversal rows of spinules and transversal row of spinules proximal to strong distolateral bipinnate spine. Second and third segments of same length, exp-2 unarmed, with distal row of spinules; exp-3 armed with subapical outer unipinnate spine, apical bipinnate seta and unipinnate spine, ornamented with outer subapical spinules, distal row of spinules, and inner hyaline frill. Enp one-segmented, slightly longer than half length of corresponding exp-1, but reaching approximately to half length of exp-1, cylindrical, with subapical seta about as long as segment and three short apical spinules. P3 (Fig. 10 b–c). Intercoxal sclerite narrow and tall, trapezoidal, unornamented, with slightly concave distal margin. Coxa with two outer spinular rows. Basis robust, with long, slender, smooth outer seta and transverse spinule row above. Enp reduced to short seta. Exp-1 outer margin with one proximal group of two spinules, distal group of two large and two smaller spinules (almost divided into two groups). Exp-2 fused with exp-1, without ornamentation, prolonged into long apophysis slightly bent inwards, with pointed tip surrounded by hyaline membrane (arrowed in Fig. 10b). Distal thumb represented by thin and pointed segment, shorter than apophysis. P4 (Fig. 10 g–h). Intercoxal sclerite smaller than in P1 or P2, with concave, smooth distal margin. Coxa with spinular row on outer margin. Basis armed with single slender seta on outer margin; ornamented with row of spinules at base of outer seta and pore. Row of three spinules of increasing size, slightly curved inwards aligned along inner margin, smaller one close to enp; one spiniform process on inner margin projecting inwards. Exp three-segmented, slender, all segments approximately of the same length; exp-1 with distolateral unipinnate spine; with transversal row of two spinules at ¼ of outer margin and below distolateral spine insertion, spinular row along distal margin; exp-2 unarmed, with spinular row along distal margin and two spinules at outer distal corner; exp-3 armed with outer unipinnate spine and long apical unipinnate seta, spine length less than ½ of seta length; ornamentation represented by row of apical spinules, row of spinules along distal outer margine, inner hyaline frill. Enp one-segmented and as long as first two segments of corresponding exp, represented by curved plate with bifid tip, carrying at outer border two outgrowths, distal one being long denticled lamella and proximal one plain small spiniform outgrowth. P5 (Figs 10 i–j, 11a). Fused to intercoxal sclerite; represented by two trapezoidal cuticular plates with long basipodal seta. Armature on free distal margin, from inner to outer: one spiniform process, three bare setae, outermost very short, remaining two subequal. P6 (Figs 10j, 11a). Vestigial, fused into simple cuticular plate, unornamented and unarmed. Adult female HABITUS. Cylindrical and slender, without any demarcation between prosome and urosome. Free pedigerous somites without any lateral or dorsal expansions, all connected by well-developed arthrodial membranes. Integument weakly sclerotized, without cuticular pits, ornamented with sensilla on all somites except preanal one. Cuticular windows on urosomites and cephalothorax not visible. Body length, excluding caudal setae, from 290 to 340 μm, mean 314 μm (n = 5), ornamentation of cephalothorax, somites, pigmentation and absence of nauplius eye as in male, except genital and first urosomite fused into double-somite. Cephalotorax representing about 19% of total body length. Prosome/urosome ratio: 0.80. Genital double-somite (Fig. 12a) without any trace of subdivision. Genital field (Fig. 12a) broader than tall, occupying anterior ventral ¼ of genital double-somite, with pair of ventrodistal pores; single genital aperture covered by fused vestigial sixth legs; median copulatory pore located medially at ¼ of double-somite length. Anal operculum and anal sinus (Fig. 11b) as in male. CAUDAL RAMI (Fig. 11b). Shape, ornamentation and armature similar to those of male, length/width ratio: 3.3. ROSTRUM, A2 AND ORAL APPENDAGES. As in male. A1 (Fig. 11c). Seven-segmented, aesthetasc on fourth segment shorter than in male, reaching below end of seventh segment. First segment bare. Second segment longest. Apical acrothek represented by two setae of subequal length and slender aesthetasc. Armature formula: 1-[0], 2-[1 pinnate + 3 bare], 3-[4 bare], 4-[2 bare + ae], 5-[0], 6-[0], 7-[7 bare + (2 bare + ae)]. P1 (Fig. 11d). Intercoxal sclerite, coxa, basis ornamentation as in male, but with inner spiniform seta (lamellar hook missing), outer seta missing; exp and enp similar to those of male in shape, ornamentation and armature. P2 (Fig. 11e). Intercoxal sclerite, coxa, basis and exp as in male. Enp similar in shape and ornamentation to that of male, but subapical seta shorter. P3 (Fig. 11f). Intercoxal sclerite small, trapezoidal, with concave margin, bare. Coxa with outer spinular row. Basis with outer spinular row; exp two-segmented: exp-1 slightly longer than exp-2, with distolateral curved unipinnate spine, transversal row of spinules at ¼ and ¼ of outer margin, distal spinular row, hyaline frill on inner distal corner; exp-2 with subapical outer unipinnate spine and apical bipinnate seta, spine length about ¼ of seta, with distal spinular row and hyaline frill on inner distal corner. Enp represented by thin and pointed segment, much shorter than half of corresponding exp-1. P4 (Fig. 11g). Intercoxal sclerite, coxa and exp as in male. Basis bare. Enp represented by thin cylindrical segment, slightly shorter than ½ the length of corresponding exp-1, ending in spiniform seta with spinules around the insertion. P5 (Figs 11h, 12a). Fused to intercoxal sclerite, represented by cuticular plate more elongated than in male, with inner spiniform process shorter than in male, outer short setae transformed in spiniform process, remaining ornamentation represented by two setae, innermost shortest and long basipodal seta. P6 (Fig. 12a). Vestigial, fused into simple cuticular plate, covering gonopore, unornamented and unarmed. Variability One male specimen with a distal row of three spinules on the outer margin of P3–Exp-1 (Fig. 10d). A second specimen with three spinules on one P3 (Fig. 10e) and one spinule on the other P3 (Fig. 10f).

Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli Bruno & Cottarelli sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: BFD63C80-116A-49C7-B10D-547D0146CB5A Figs 2 – 8; Tables 1–3 Diagnosis Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli Bruno & Cottarelli sp. nov. is characterized by the peculiar morphology of the male P4 enp, with apically curved inner tip and, mainly, with a thin proximal outgrowth as long as the apical (crenulate) lamellar outgrowth. Females are characterized by the P3 enp being shorter than the corresponding exp-1. Etymology The species epithet is the masculine genitive of the Latin words ‘ sanctus ’ and ‘ angelus ’, meaning ‘Saint’ and ‘angel’, respectively, and refer to the locus typicus of this Cottarellicaris, i.e., a cave dedicated to Saint Michael the Archangel, whose cult is widespread in Southern Italy. Material examined Holotype ITALY • ♂; Cosenza Province, Cassano allo Ionio, Complesso Grotte di Sant’Angelo, Grotta Superiore di Sant’Angelo, pool 2; approximate coordinates 39°47′20.24ʺ N, 16°18′25.60ʺ E; 9 May 2017; R. Grasso and M.T. Spena leg.; dissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli holotype: male”; NHMUK 2020.4. Paratypes ITALY • 2 ♂♂; same collection data as for holotype; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: male”; NHMUK 2020.5 to 2020.6 • 2 ♂♂; same collection data as for holotype but pool 4; dissected and mounted each on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: male”; NHMUK 2020.7 to 2020.8 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for holotype but pool 4; undissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: male”; NHMUK 2020.9 • 3 ♀♀; same collection data as for holotype; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: female”; NHMUK 2020.10 to 2020.12 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for holotype; mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: female”; NHMUK 2020.13 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for holotype but pool 4; dissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: female”; NHMUK 2020.14 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for holotype but pool 4; mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: female”; NHMUK 2020.15. Other material ITALY • 1 ♂; Cosenza Province, Cassano allo Ionio, Vucco Ucciardo, pool 1; approximate coordinates; 39°47′3.56ʺ N, 16°19′14.87″ E; 25 Apr. 2013; R. Grasso and M.T. Spena leg.; mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: male”; NHMUK 2020.16 • 4 ♂♂; same collection data as for preceding; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: male”; NHMUK 2020.17 to 2020.20 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: female”; NHMUK 2020.21 • 4 ♀♀; same collection data as for preceding; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: female”; NHMUK 2020.22 to 2020.25 • 2 ♂♂; Cosenza Province, San Lorenzo Bellizzi, Grotta del Banco di ferro, pool 3; approximate coordinates: 39°52′26.38ʺ N, 16°20′27.35ʺ E; 27 May 2015; Grasso and M.T. Spena leg.; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: male”; NHMUK 2020.26 to 2020.27 • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: male and female”; NHMUK 2020.28 to 2020.29 • 2 ♀♀, same collection data as for preceding; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: female”; NHMUK 2020.30 to 2020.31 • 1 ♀, same collection data as for preceding; 10 May 2017; mounted on slide labelled “ Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: female”; NHMUK 2020.32. Description Adult male BODY. Unpigmented, nauplius eye absent. Total body length, measured from tip of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami (excluding caudal setae) from 295 to 333 µm, mean 311 μm (n = 6). Habitus (Fig. 2a) cylindrical and slender, without any demarcation between prosome and urosome; prosome to urosome ratio: 0.90. Free pedigerous somites without any lateral or dorsal expansions, all connected by well-developed arthrodial membranes.Integument weakly sclerotized, without cuticular pits, ornamented with sensilla on all somites except preanal one. Cuticular windows on urosomites and cephalothorax not observed. Cephalothorax representing about 20 % of total body length. Anal somite (Fig. 3a, c) with pair of large dorsal sensilla at base of anal operculum, pair of cuticular lateral pores (one pore on each side) on proximal margin. Anal operculum (Fig. 3a, c) well-developed, ornamented with row of spinules on outer surface, with straight distal margin. Anal sinus wide open. CAUDAL RAMI (Fig. 3a, c). Shorter than anal somite, approximately cylindrical, slightly divergent; length to width ratio: 2.7. Anterolateral accessory seta (I) and anterolateral seta (II) subequal in length, both setae inserted together distally at 5/6 length of caudal ramus, smooth. Posterolateral seta (III) missing. Outer terminal seta (IV) long and pinnate (length seta/length caudal ramus: 1.5), inserted subterminally and projecting outwards; inner terminal seta (V) without fracture plane. Terminal accessory seta (VI) short (length seta/length caudal ramus: 0.7) and smooth. Dorsal seta (VII) articulate, inserted distally at 5/6 length of the caudal ramus, smooth. ROSTRUM (Fig. 4 a–b). Small, not demarcated at base, almost reaching distal margin of first antennulary segment, ornamented with two dorsal sensilla. A1 (Fig. 4 a–c). Prehensile, eight-segmented pocket-knife type sensu Schminke (2010). First segment short with transversal row of spinules; second segment longest, with six setae, longest seta unipinnate; third segment with four distal bare setae; fourth segment reduced to a small sclerite with two short setae; fifth segment enlarged with inner round expansion carrying one short and two longer subequal setae, and distal tubercle with one seta and one large aesthetasc, reaching past end of eighth segment; sixth segment bare, partially fused to previous one; seventh segment bare, distal anterior corner protruding as curved apophysis ending in bilobate tip; eighth segment with seven setae and apical acrothek represented two setae and long, slender aesthetasc. Armature formula: 1-[0], 2-[1 unipinnate + 5 bare], 3-[4 bare], 4-[2 bare], 5-[4 bare + ae], 6-[0], 7-[0], 8-[7 bare + (2 bare + ae)]. A2 (Fig. 4d). Coxa unarmed; allobasis with transverse row of spinules on inner margin. Exp represented by small segment merged with allobasis, with pinnate apical seta. Enp bearing two short subdistal unipinnate spines and five longer distal elements: two of them geniculated, one transformed with furcate tip, all elements unipinnate, with long spinules near their insertions. MDB (Fig. 4e). Coxal gnathobase bare, cutting edge with apical teeth and short bipinnate seta. Onesegmented palp, with two smooth, apical setae of equal length. MX 1 (Fig. 4f). Praecoxal arthrite with three apical curved robust spines apically denticled, one subdistal curved seta. Coxal endite long, with one apical seta. Basis cylindrical, with two distal bare setae. Enp and exp absent (fused to basis without trace). MX 2 (Fig. 4g). Basis with two endites, proximal endite short, with one thin, bare seta; distal endite cylindrical, longer, armed apically with two subequal thin bare setae and one transformed, leaf-like pinnate seta; proximal endopodal segment drawn into apical unipinnate claw; distal endopodal segment with two long setae of equal length. MXP (Fig. 4h). Subchelate, composed of small and unarmed syncoxa, basis slim and elongate, unarmed, 1-segmented enp fused to the claw-like apical seta. P1 (Fig. 5 a–b). With smooth and small intercoxal sclerite; coxa bare. Basis large, armed with small seta and lamellar hook with rounded tip on the inner margin near the enp insertion. Exp three-segmented, slightly shorter than endopod; exp-1 with thin pinnate seta on outer distal corner; exp-2 shortest and unarmed, ornamented with row of spinules along the subdistal and distal margins; exp-3 with two geniculate unipinnate apical setae and two subapical unipinnate setae. Enp two-segmented; enp-1 as long as first two segments of corresponding exp, with two transversal rows of few spinules on outer margin. Enp-2 thinner and shorter than enp-1, with two spinules at ¼ of inner margin and spinules along distal margin, with long, geniculate unipinnate seta and shorter unipinnate seta apically. P2 (Fig. 5c). With smooth intercoxal sclerite, twice as wide as long, with concave distal margin. Coxa bare. Basis unarmed, with row of five spinules on outer margin. Exp three-segmented, exp-1 longest, with row of two spinules at ¼ of outer margin, longitudinal row of three spinules proximal to strong distolateral unipinnate spine. Second and third segments of same length; exp-2 unarmed, with row of spinules on distolateral corner, exp-3 armed with subapical outer unipinnate spine, apical bipinnate seta and outer unipinnate spine, ornamented with subapical spinule and inner hyaline frill. Enp onesegmented, about half length of exp-1, represented by cylindrical segment, with apical seta about as long as segment and three short spinules. P3 (Fig. 5d). Intercoxal sclerite small, trapezoidal, unornamented, with slightly concave distal margin. Coxa bare. Basis robust, with long, slender, smooth outer seta and transverse spinule row above, and distal pore. Enp reduced to short seta. Exp-1 of characteristic shape: inner margin with large knob at ½ length and basal thin and pointed tubercle fused to exp; outer margin with proximal and distal rows of respectively one and four spinules. Exp-2 fused with exp-1, without ornamentation, prolonged into long apophysis slightly bent inwards, with pointed tip. Distal thumb represented by thin and pointed sigmoid segment, reaching past apophysis. P4 (Fig. 5 f–h). Intercoxal sclerite smaller than in P1–P3, with concave, smooth distal margin. Coxa bare. Basis armed with single slender seta on outer margin; ornamented with row of spinules at base of outer seta; row of three spiniform processes aligned along inner margin, of increasing size from outermost to innermost, all slightly curved inwards. Exp three-segmented, slender, all segments approximately of the same length; exp-1 slightly curved inwards, with distolateral pinnate spine, transversal spinular row at midlength of outer margin, spinular row at distolateral spine insertion, spinular row along distal margin; exp-2 unarmed, with spinular row along distal margin; exp-3 armed with outer unipinnate spine with spinules near insertion and very long apical pinnate seta, spine length less than ¼ of seta length; ornamentation represented by row of apical spinules and hyaline frill on inner distal corner. Enp onesegmented, as long as first two segments of corresponding exp, represented by curved plate with pointed inner tip carrying at outer border two outgrowths, distal one being elongate lamella, with undulating (crenulate) margins, reaching past end of enp, proximal outgrowth short curved lamella ending in thin tip. P5 (Fig. 6 a–d). Fused to intercoxal sclerite; represented by two trapezoidal cuticular plates with long basipodal seta and small pore near insertion. Armature on free distal margin, from inner to outer: one spiniform seta, three bare setae, outermost very short, remaining two subequal. P6 (Fig. 6a). Vestigial, fused into simple cuticular plate, unornamented and unarmed. Adult female HABITUS (Fig. 2b). Cylindrical and slender, without any demarcation between prosome and urosome. Free pedigerous somites without any lateral or dorsal expansions, all connected by well-developed arthrodial membranes. Integument weakly sclerotized, without cuticular pits, ornamented with sensilla on all somites except preanal one. Cuticular windows on urosomites and cephalothorax not present. Body length, excluding caudal setae, from 280 to 312 μm, mean 304 μm (n = 6), ornamentation of cephalothorax, somites, pigmentation and absence of nauplius eye as in male, except genital and first urosomite fused into double-somite. Cephalotorax representing about 19% of the total body length. Genital double-somite (Figs 6e, 8c) without any trace of subdivision. Genital field (Figs 6e, 8c) broader than tall, occupying anterior ventral ¼ of genital double-somite; single genital aperture covered by fused vestigial sixth legs; median copulatory pore located medially at ¼ of somite. Anal operculum convex. CAUDAL RAMI (Figs 6 f–g, 8b). Shape, ornamentation and armature similar to those of male, length to width ratio: 3.5. ROSTRUM, A2 AND ORAL APPENDAGES. As in male. A1 (Fig. 7c). Seven-segmented, aesthetasc on fourth segment longer than in male, reaching beyond end of seventh segment. First segment bare. Apical acrothek represented by two setae of different length and slender aesthetasc. Armature formula: 1-[0], 2-[1 unipinnate + 4 bare], 3-[4 bare], 4-[2 bare + ae], 5-[0], 6-[0], 7-[7 bare + (2 bare + ae)]. P1 (Fig. 7d). Intercoxal sclerite, coxa, basis as in male but lamellar hook missing; exp and enp similar to those of male in shape, ornamentation and armature. P2 (Fig. 7e). Intercoxal sclerite longer and narrower than in male, coxa narrower than in male, basis as in male, but with spinular row below enp insertion. Exp as in male. Enp similar in shape and ornamentation to that of male, but with two apical spinule instead of three. P3 (Fig. 7 f–g). Intercoxal sclerite small, with concave margin, bare. Coxa bare. Basis with outer seta and spinular row near seta insertion. Exp two-segmented: exp-1 as long as exp-2, with distolateral curved unipinnate spine, transversal row of spinules at ¼ and ¼ of outer margin, hyaline frill on inner distal corner; exp-2 with outer unipinnate spine and apical pinnate seta, spine length about ¼ of seta, hyaline frill on inner distal corner. Enp represented by thin and pointed segment, slightly shorter than half of corresponding exp-1, apically pinnate. P4 (Figs 7h, 8d). Intercoxal sclerite, coxa and exp as in male. Basis bare. Enp represented by thin cylindrical segment, about ¼ length of corresponding exp-1, ending in short bipinnate seta. P5 (Fig. 6e). Fused to intercoxal sclerite, represented by two cuticular plates shorter than in male, with same armature and without distal pore. P6 (Fig. 6e). Vestigial, fused into simple cuticular plate, covering gonopore, unornamented and unarmed. Variability The ornamentation of male P3 exp-1 can vary, as one specimen from Vucco Ucciardo has the proximal and distal rows of respectively two and three spinules (Fig. 5e). Two males (Fig. 3b, d) and one female (Fig. 7b) from Grotta del Banco di ferro, one male (Fig. 3e) and one female (Fig. 7a) from Vucco Ucciardo carry seven setae on the caudal rami instead then 6. In one female from Vucco Ucciardo the enp P4 is fused with the apical spine (Fig. 7i). Accompanying fauna Grotta del Banco di ferro, 10 May 2017: Maraenobiotus sp.: pool 4; Elaphoidella sp.: pool 2.

Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli Bruno & Cottarelli sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: BFD63C80-116A-49C7-B10D-547D0146CB5A Figs 2 ��� 8; Tables 1���3 Diagnosis Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli Bruno & Cottarelli sp. nov. is characterized by the peculiar morphology of the male P4 enp, with apically curved inner tip and, mainly, with a thin proximal outgrowth as long as the apical (crenulate) lamellar outgrowth. Females are characterized by the P3 enp being shorter than the corresponding exp-1. Etymology The species epithet is the masculine genitive of the Latin words ��� sanctus ��� and ��� angelus ���, meaning ���Saint��� and ���angel���, respectively, and refer to the locus typicus of this Cottarellicaris, i.e., a cave dedicated to Saint Michael the Archangel, whose cult is widespread in Southern Italy. Material examined Holotype ITALY ��� ♂; Cosenza Province, Cassano allo Ionio, Complesso Grotte di Sant���Angelo, Grotta Superiore di Sant���Angelo, pool 2; approximate coordinates 39��47���20.24�� N, 16��18���25.60�� E; 9 May 2017; R. Grasso and M.T. Spena leg.; dissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli holotype: male���; NHMUK 2020.4. Paratypes ITALY ��� 2 ♂♂; same collection data as for holotype; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: male���; NHMUK 2020.5 to 2020.6 ��� 2 ♂♂; same collection data as for holotype but pool 4; dissected and mounted each on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: male���; NHMUK 2020.7 to 2020.8 ��� 1 ♂; same collection data as for holotype but pool 4; undissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: male���; NHMUK 2020.9 ��� 3 ♀♀; same collection data as for holotype; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: female���; NHMUK 2020.10 to 2020.12 ��� 1 ♀; same collection data as for holotype; mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: female���; NHMUK 2020.13 ��� 1 ♀; same collection data as for holotype but pool 4; dissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: female���; NHMUK 2020.14 ��� 1 ♀; same collection data as for holotype but pool 4; mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli paratype: female���; NHMUK 2020.15. Other material ITALY ��� 1 ♂; Cosenza Province, Cassano allo Ionio, Vucco Ucciardo, pool 1; approximate coordinates; 39��47���3.56�� N, 16��19���14.87��� E; 25 Apr. 2013; R. Grasso and M.T. Spena leg.; mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: male���; NHMUK 2020.16 ��� 4 ♂♂; same collection data as for preceding; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: male���; NHMUK 2020.17 to 2020.20 ��� 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: female���; NHMUK 2020.21 ��� 4 ♀♀; same collection data as for preceding; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: female���; NHMUK 2020.22 to 2020.25 ��� 2 ♂♂; Cosenza Province, San Lorenzo Bellizzi, Grotta del Banco di ferro, pool 3; approximate coordinates: 39��52���26.38�� N, 16��20���27.35�� E; 27 May 2015; Grasso and M.T. Spena leg.; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: male���; NHMUK 2020.26 to 2020.27 ��� 1 ♂, 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: male and female���; NHMUK 2020.28 to 2020.29 ��� 2 ♀♀, same collection data as for preceding; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: female���; NHMUK 2020.30 to 2020.31 ��� 1 ♀, same collection data as for preceding; 10 May 2017; mounted on slide labelled ��� Cottarellicaris sanctiangeli: female���; NHMUK 2020.32. Description Adult male BODY. Unpigmented, nauplius eye absent. Total body length, measured from tip of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami (excluding caudal setae) from 295 to 333 ��m, mean 311 ��m (n = 6). Habitus (Fig. 2a) cylindrical and slender, without any demarcation between prosome and urosome; prosome to urosome ratio: 0.90. Free pedigerous somites without any lateral or dorsal expansions, all connected by well-developed arthrodial membranes.Integument weakly sclerotized, without cuticular pits, ornamented with sensilla on all somites except preanal one. Cuticular windows on urosomites and cephalothorax not observed. Cephalothorax representing about 20 % of total body length. Anal somite (Fig. 3a, c) with pair of large dorsal sensilla at base of anal operculum, pair of cuticular lateral pores (one pore on each side) on proximal margin. Anal operculum (Fig. 3a, c) well-developed, ornamented with row of spinules on outer surface, with straight distal margin. Anal sinus wide open. CAUDAL RAMI (Fig. 3a, c). Shorter than anal somite, approximately cylindrical, slightly divergent; length to width ratio: 2.7. Anterolateral accessory seta (I) and anterolateral seta (II) subequal in length, both setae inserted together distally at 5/6 length of caudal ramus, smooth. Posterolateral seta (III) missing. Outer terminal seta (IV) long and pinnate (length seta/length caudal ramus: 1.5), inserted subterminally and projecting outwards; inner terminal seta (V) without fracture plane. Terminal accessory seta (VI) short (length seta/length caudal ramus: 0.7) and smooth. Dorsal seta (VII) articulate, inserted distally at 5/6 length of the caudal ramus, smooth. ROSTRUM (Fig. 4 a���b). Small, not demarcated at base, almost reaching distal margin of first antennulary segment, ornamented with two dorsal sensilla. A1 (Fig. 4 a���c). Prehensile, eight-segmented pocket-knife type sensu Schminke (2010). First segment short with transversal row of spinules; second segment longest, with six setae, longest seta unipinnate; third segment with four distal bare setae; fourth segment reduced to a small sclerite with two short setae; fifth segment enlarged with inner round expansion carrying one short and two longer subequal setae, and distal tubercle with one seta and one large aesthetasc, reaching past end of eighth segment; sixth segment bare, partially fused to previous one; seventh segment bare, distal anterior corner protruding as curved apophysis ending in bilobate tip; eighth segment with seven setae and apical acrothek represented two setae and long, slender aesthetasc. Armature formula: 1-[0], 2-[1 unipinnate + 5 bare], 3-[4 bare], 4-[2 bare], 5-[4 bare + ae], 6-[0], 7-[0], 8-[7 bare + (2 bare + ae)]. A2 (Fig. 4d). Coxa unarmed; allobasis with transverse row of spinules on inner margin. Exp represented by small segment merged with allobasis, with pinnate apical seta. Enp bearing two short subdistal unipinnate spines and five longer distal elements: two of them geniculated, one transformed with furcate tip, all elements unipinnate, with long spinules near their insertions. MDB (Fig. 4e). Coxal gnathobase bare, cutting edge with apical teeth and short bipinnate seta. Onesegmented palp, with two smooth, apical setae of equal length. MX 1 (Fig. 4f). Praecoxal arthrite with three apical curved robust spines apically denticled, one subdistal curved seta. Coxal endite long, with one apical seta. Basis cylindrical, with two distal bare setae. Enp and exp absent (fused to basis without trace). MX 2 (Fig. 4g). Basis with two endites, proximal endite short, with one thin, bare seta; distal endite cylindrical, longer, armed apically with two subequal thin bare setae and one transformed, leaf-like pinnate seta; proximal endopodal segment drawn into apical unipinnate claw; distal endopodal segment with two long setae of equal length. MXP (Fig. 4h). Subchelate, composed of small and unarmed syncoxa, basis slim and elongate, unarmed, 1-segmented enp fused to the claw-like apical seta. P1 (Fig. 5 a���b). With smooth and small intercoxal sclerite; coxa bare. Basis large, armed with small seta and lamellar hook with rounded tip on the inner margin near the enp insertion. Exp three-segmented, slightly shorter than endopod; exp-1 with thin pinnate seta on outer distal corner; exp-2 shortest and unarmed, ornamented with row of spinules along the subdistal and distal margins; exp-3 with two geniculate unipinnate apical setae and two subapical unipinnate setae. Enp two-segmented; enp-1 as long as first two segments of corresponding exp, with two transversal rows of few spinules on outer margin. Enp-2 thinner and shorter than enp-1, with two spinules at �� of inner margin and spinules along distal margin, with long, geniculate unipinnate seta and shorter unipinnate seta apically. P2 (Fig. 5c). With smooth intercoxal sclerite, twice as wide as long, with concave distal margin. Coxa bare. Basis unarmed, with row of five spinules on outer margin. Exp three-segmented, exp-1 longest, with row of two spinules at �� of outer margin, longitudinal row of three spinules proximal to strong distolateral unipinnate spine. Second and third segments of same length; exp-2 unarmed, with row of spinules on distolateral corner, exp-3 armed with subapical outer unipinnate spine, apical bipinnate seta and outer unipinnate spine, ornamented with subapical spinule and inner hyaline frill. Enp onesegmented, about half length of exp-1, represented by cylindrical segment, with apical seta about as long as segment and three short spinules. P3 (Fig. 5d). Intercoxal sclerite small, trapezoidal, unornamented, with slightly concave distal margin. Coxa bare. Basis robust, with long, slender, smooth outer seta and transverse spinule row above, and distal pore. Enp reduced to short seta. Exp-1 of characteristic shape: inner margin with large knob at �� length and basal thin and pointed tubercle fused to exp; outer margin with proximal and distal rows of respectively one and four spinules. Exp-2 fused with exp-1, without ornamentation, prolonged into long apophysis slightly bent inwards, with pointed tip. Distal thumb represented by thin and pointed sigmoid segment, reaching past apophysis. P4 (Fig. 5 f���h). Intercoxal sclerite smaller than in P1���P3, with concave, smooth distal margin. Coxa bare. Basis armed with single slender seta on outer margin; ornamented with row of spinules at base of outer seta; row of three spiniform processes aligned along inner margin, of increasing size from outermost to innermost, all slightly curved inwards. Exp three-segmented, slender, all segments approximately of the same length; exp-1 slightly curved inwards, with distolateral pinnate spine, transversal spinular row at midlength of outer margin, spinular row at distolateral spine insertion, spinular row along distal margin; exp-2 unarmed, with spinular row along distal margin; exp-3 armed with outer unipinnate spine with spinules near insertion and very long apical pinnate seta, spine length less than �� of seta length; ornamentation represented by row of apical spinules and hyaline frill on inner distal corner. Enp onesegmented, as long as first two segments of corresponding exp, represented by curved plate with pointed inner tip carrying at outer border two outgrowths, distal one being elongate lamella, with undulating (crenulate) margins, reaching past end of enp, proximal outgrowth short curved lamella ending in thin tip. P5 (Fig. 6 a���d). Fused to intercoxal sclerite; represented by two trapezoidal cuticular plates with long basipodal seta and small pore near insertion. Armature on free distal margin, from inner to outer: one spiniform seta, three bare setae, outermost very short, remaining two subequal. P6 (Fig. 6a). Vestigial, fused into simple cuticular plate, unornamented and unarmed. Adult female HABITUS (Fig. 2b). Cylindrical and slender, without any demarcation between prosome and urosome. Free pedigerous somites without any lateral or dorsal expansions, all connected by well-developed arthrodial membranes. Integument weakly sclerotized, without cuticular pits, ornamented with sensilla on all somites except preanal one. Cuticular windows on urosomites and cephalothorax not present. Body length, excluding caudal setae, from 280 to 312 ��m, mean 304 ��m (n = 6), ornamentation of cephalothorax, somites, pigmentation and absence of nauplius eye as in male, except genital and first urosomite fused into double-somite. Cephalotorax representing about 19% of the total body length. Genital double-somite (Figs 6e, 8c) without any trace of subdivision. Genital field (Figs 6e, 8c) broader than tall, occupying anterior ventral �� of genital double-somite; single genital aperture covered by fused vestigial sixth legs; median copulatory pore located medially at �� of somite. Anal operculum convex. CAUDAL RAMI (Figs 6 f���g, 8b). Shape, ornamentation and armature similar to those of male, length to width ratio: 3.5. ROSTRUM, A2 AND ORAL APPENDAGES. As in male. A1 (Fig. 7c). Seven-segmented, aesthetasc on fourth segment longer than in male, reaching beyond end of seventh segment. First segment bare. Apical acrothek represented by two setae of different length and slender aesthetasc. Armature formula: 1-[0], 2-[1 unipinnate + 4 bare], 3-[4 bare], 4-[2 bare + ae], 5-[0], 6-[0], 7-[7 bare + (2 bare + ae)]. P1 (Fig. 7d). Intercoxal sclerite, coxa, basis as in male but lamellar hook missing; exp and enp similar to those of male in shape, ornamentation and armature. P2 (Fig. 7e). Intercoxal sclerite longer and narrower than in male, coxa narrower than in male, basis as in male, but with spinular row below enp insertion. Exp as in male. Enp similar in shape and ornamentation to that of male, but with two apical spinule instead of three. P3 (Fig. 7 f���g). Intercoxal sclerite small, with concave margin, bare. Coxa bare. Basis with outer seta and spinular row near seta insertion. Exp two-segmented: exp-1 as long as exp-2, with distolateral curved unipinnate spine, transversal row of spinules at �� and �� of outer margin, hyaline frill on inner distal corner; exp-2 with outer unipinnate spine and apical pinnate seta, spine length about �� of seta, hyaline frill on inner distal corner. Enp represented by thin and pointed segment, slightly shorter than half of corresponding exp-1, apically pinnate. P4 (Figs 7h, 8d). Intercoxal sclerite, coxa and exp as in male. Basis bare. Enp represented by thin cylindrical segment, about �� length of corresponding exp-1, ending in short bipinnate seta. P5 (Fig. 6e). Fused to intercoxal sclerite, represented by two cuticular plates shorter than in male, with same armature and without distal pore. P6 (Fig. 6e). Vestigial, fused into simple cuticular plate, covering gonopore, unornamented and unarmed. Variability The ornamentation of male P3 exp-1 can vary, as one specimen from Vucco Ucciardo has the proximal and distal rows of respectively two and three spinules (Fig. 5e). Two males (Fig. 3b, d) and one female (Fig. 7b) from Grotta del Banco di ferro, one male (Fig. 3e) and one female (Fig. 7a) from Vucco Ucciardo carry seven setae on the caudal rami instead then 6. In one female from Vucco Ucciardo the enp P4 is fused with the apical spine (Fig. 7i). Accompanying fauna Grotta del Banco di ferro, 10 May 2017: Maraenobiotus sp.: pool 4; Elaphoidella sp.: pool 2., Published as part of Bruno, Maria Cristina, Cottarelli, Vezio, Marrone, Federico, Grasso, Rosario, Stefani, Erika, Vecchioni, Luca & Spena, Maria Teresa, 2020, Morphological and molecular characterization of three new Parastenocarididae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida) from caves in Southern Italy, pp. 1-46 in European Journal of Taxonomy 689 on pages 9-19, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2020.689, http://zenodo.org/record/3961738, {"references":["Schminke H. K. 2010. High-level phylogenetic relationships within Parastenocarididae (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). Crustaceana 83: 343 - 367. https: // doi. org / 10.1163 / 001121610 X 12627655658168"]}

Stammericaris vincentimariae Bruno & Cottarelli sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: AD8C5160-A007-4D29-974F-12925EAD0CA7 Figs 9���11, 12a; Tables 1���3 Diagnosis Stammericaris vincentimariae Bruno & Cottarelli sp. nov. is characterized in males primarily by the presence of one seta on the 7 th antennular segment and by the morphology of the P4: the innermost spinule of the basis inner row is inserted transversally instead of longitudinally; the enp curved plate tip is bifid instead of pointy and the distal outgrowth is flattened instead of being a seta. Females are characterized by the enp P3 much shorter than half of the first corresponding exp-1. Both sexes are characterized by caudal rami with a strong apical pointed apophysis. Etymology The species epithet is the genitive of the Latin first names Vincentius and Maria (Vincent and Mary in English), the names of the son and daughter of one of the authors (RG), in recognition of the great interest shown to speleology from their childhood onward and for participating in some of the collection campaigns. Material examined Holotype ITALY ��� ♂; Cosenza Province, Cassano allo Ionio, Grotta dello Scoglio, pool 1; approximate coordinates 39��47���9.38�� N, 16��18���31.89�� E; 25 Apr. 2015; R. Grasso and M.T. Spena leg.; dissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Stammericaris vincentimariae holotype: male���; NHMUK 2020.33. Paratypes ITALY ��� 2 ♂♂; same collection data as for holotype but pool 2; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Stammericaris vincentimariae paratype: male���; NHMUK 2020.34 to 2020.35 ��� 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; dissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Stammericaris vincentimariae paratype: male���; NHMUK 2020.36 ��� 3 ♂♂; same collection data as for holotype; each dissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Stammericaris vincentimariae paratype: male���; NHMUK 2020.37 to 2020.39 ��� 1 ♀; same collection data as for holotype; dissected and mounted on one slide labelled ��� Stammericaris vincentimariae paratype: female���; NHMUK 2020.40. Description Adult male BODY. Unpigmented, nauplius eye absent. Total body length, measured from tip of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami (excluding caudal setae) from 295 to 334 ��m, mean 310 ��m (n = 5). Habitus cylindrical and slender, without any demarcation between prosome and urosome; prosome to urosome ratio: 0.80. Free pedigerous somites without any lateral or dorsal expansions, all connected by welldeveloped arthrodial membranes. Integument weakly sclerotized, without cuticular pits, ornamented with sensilla on all somites except preanal one. Cuticular windows on urosomites (Figs 10j, 11a) and cephalothorax not visible. Cephalothorax representing about 18 % of total body length. Anal somite (Fig. 9 a���b) with pair of large dorsal sensilla at base of anal operculum, pair of cuticular lateral pores (one pore on each side) on proximal margin. Anal operculum (Fig. 9 a���b) well developed, with straight distal margin. Anal sinus wide open. Spermatophore as in Fig. 10j. CAUDAL RAMI (Fig. 9 a���b). Shorter than anal somite, approximately cylindrical, with strong dorsal pointed apophysis, length to width ratio: 2.7. Anterolateral accessory seta (I) and anterolateral seta (III) subequal in length, posterolateral seta (III) short, all setae inserted together distally at �� length of caudal ramus. Outer terminal seta (IV) long and pinnate (length seta/length caudal ramus: 1.4), inserted subterminally; inner terminal seta (V) without fracture plane. Terminal accessory seta (VI) short (length seta/length caudal ramus: 0.6) and smooth. Dorsal seta (VII) articulate, inserted distally at �� length of the caudal ramus. ROSTRUM (Fig. 9d). Small, not demarcated at base, almost reaching distal margin of first antennulary segment, ornamented with two dorsal sensilla. A1 (Fig. 9 c���d). Prehensile, eight-segmented, pocket-knife type sensu Schminke (2010). First segment short; second segment longest, with seven setae, the longest seta unipinnate; third segment with four distal bare setae; fourth segment reduced to small sclerite with two short setae; fifth segment enlarged with inner round expansion with deep incision (arrowed in Fig. 9 c���d) and one seta at base of distal tubercle with two long subequal setae and one large aesthetasc, reaching past end of eighth segment. Sixth segment bare, partially fused to previous one. Seventh segment with one small seta, distal anterior corner protruding as curved apophysis ending in tip. Eighth segment with seven setae and apical acrothek represented by two setae and slender long aesthetasc. Armature formula: 1-[0], 2-[1 uniplumose + 6 bare], 3-[4 bare], 4-[2 bare], 5-[3 bare + ae], 6-[0], 7-[1 bare], 8-[7 bare + (2 bare + ae)]. A2 (Fig. 9e). Coxa unarmed; allobasis with two transverse row of spinules on inner margin. Exp represented by small segment merged with allobasis, with bipinnate apical seta. Enp bearing two spines along inner margin, one short subdistal inner spine, one subdistal outer transformed seta, two geniculate setae and one spine apically, all spines unipinnate, all elements with long spinules near their insertions except proximalmost inner spines. MDB (Fig. 9f). Coxal gnathobase with lateral pinnate short seta, cutting edge with apical teeth. Onesegmented palp, with two distal setae of different length. MX 1 (Fig. 9h). Praecoxal arthrite with three apical curved robust spines apically denticled, one subdistal curved seta. Coxal endite long, with one apical seta. Basis cylindrical, with three distal bare setae. Enp and exp absent (fused to basis without trace). MX 2 (Fig. 9g). Basis with two endites, proximal endite short, with one thin, bare seta; distal endite cylindrical, longer, armed apically with two subequal thin bare setae and one transformed, leaf-like pinnate seta; proximal endopodal segment drawn into apical unipinnate claw; distal endopodal segment with two long setae of equal length. MXP (Fig. 9i). Subchelate, composed of small and unarmed syncoxa, basis slim and elongate, unarmed, 1-segmented enp fused to claw-like apical seta. P1 (Fig. 9 j���k). With smooth and small intercoxal sclerite; coxa bare. Basis large, armed with single slender seta on outer margin, and small seta and lamellar hook on inner margin of basis near enp insertion. Exp three-segmented, slightly shorter than enp; exp-1 with thin unipinnate spine on outer distal corner; exp-2 shortest and unarmed; exp-3 with two geniculate and one normal unipinnate apical setae, and one subapical unipinnate spine. Enp two-segmented; enp-1 longer than first two segments of corresponding exp, with one transversal row of spinules on outer margin, and three on inner margin. Enp-2 thinner and shorter than enp-1, with two spinules at �� of inner margin; long, geniculate unipinnate seta, and shorter unipinnate seta on apex. P2 (Fig. 10a). With smooth and small intercoxal sclerite, three times as wide as long, with slightly concave distal margin. Coxa bare. Basis unarmed, with row of four spinules on outer margin. Exp three-segmented, exp-1 longest, with three transversal rows of spinules and transversal row of spinules proximal to strong distolateral bipinnate spine. Second and third segments of same length, exp-2 unarmed, with distal row of spinules; exp-3 armed with subapical outer unipinnate spine, apical bipinnate seta and unipinnate spine, ornamented with outer subapical spinules, distal row of spinules, and inner hyaline frill. Enp one-segmented, slightly longer than half length of corresponding exp-1, but reaching approximately to half length of exp-1, cylindrical, with subapical seta about as long as segment and three short apical spinules. P3 (Fig. 10 b���c). Intercoxal sclerite narrow and tall, trapezoidal, unornamented, with slightly concave distal margin. Coxa with two outer spinular rows. Basis robust, with long, slender, smooth outer seta and transverse spinule row above. Enp reduced to short seta. Exp-1 outer margin with one proximal group of two spinules, distal group of two large and two smaller spinules (almost divided into two groups). Exp-2 fused with exp-1, without ornamentation, prolonged into long apophysis slightly bent inwards, with pointed tip surrounded by hyaline membrane (arrowed in Fig. 10b). Distal thumb represented by thin and pointed segment, shorter than apophysis. P4 (Fig. 10 g���h). Intercoxal sclerite smaller than in P1 or P2, with concave, smooth distal margin. Coxa with spinular row on outer margin. Basis armed with single slender seta on outer margin; ornamented with row of spinules at base of outer seta and pore. Row of three spinules of increasing size, slightly curved inwards aligned along inner margin, smaller one close to enp; one spiniform process on inner margin projecting inwards. Exp three-segmented, slender, all segments approximately of the same length; exp-1 with distolateral unipinnate spine; with transversal row of two spinules at �� of outer margin and below distolateral spine insertion, spinular row along distal margin; exp-2 unarmed, with spinular row along distal margin and two spinules at outer distal corner; exp-3 armed with outer unipinnate spine and long apical unipinnate seta, spine length less than �� of seta length; ornamentation represented by row of apical spinules, row of spinules along distal outer margine, inner hyaline frill. Enp one-segmented and as long as first two segments of corresponding exp, represented by curved plate with bifid tip, carrying at outer border two outgrowths, distal one being long denticled lamella and proximal one plain small spiniform outgrowth. P5 (Figs 10 i���j, 11a). Fused to intercoxal sclerite; represented by two trapezoidal cuticular plates with long basipodal seta. Armature on free distal margin, from inner to outer: one spiniform process, three bare setae, outermost very short, remaining two subequal. P6 (Figs 10j, 11a). Vestigial, fused into simple cuticular plate, unornamented and unarmed. Adult female HABITUS. Cylindrical and slender, without any demarcation between prosome and urosome. Free pedigerous somites without any lateral or dorsal expansions, all connected by well-developed arthrodial membranes. Integument weakly sclerotized, without cuticular pits, ornamented with sensilla on all somites except preanal one. Cuticular windows on urosomites and cephalothorax not visible. Body length, excluding caudal setae, from 290 to 340 ��m, mean 314 ��m (n = 5), ornamentation of cephalothorax, somites, pigmentation and absence of nauplius eye as in male, except genital and first urosomite fused into double-somite. Cephalotorax representing about 19% of total body length. Prosome/urosome ratio: 0.80. Genital double-somite (Fig. 12a) without any trace of subdivision. Genital field (Fig. 12a) broader than tall, occupying anterior ventral �� of genital double-somite, with pair of ventrodistal pores; single genital aperture covered by fused vestigial sixth legs; median copulatory pore located medially at �� of double-somite length. Anal operculum and anal sinus (Fig. 11b) as in male. CAUDAL RAMI (Fig. 11b). Shape, ornamentation and armature similar to those of male, length/width ratio: 3.3. ROSTRUM, A2 AND ORAL APPENDAGES. As in male. A1 (Fig. 11c). Seven-segmented, aesthetasc on fourth segment shorter than in male, reaching below end of seventh segment. First segment bare. Second segment longest. Apical acrothek represented by two setae of subequal length and slender aesthetasc. Armature formula: 1-[0], 2-[1 pinnate + 3 bare], 3-[4 bare], 4-[2 bare + ae], 5-[0], 6-[0], 7-[7 bare + (2 bare + ae)]. P1 (Fig. 11d). Intercoxal sclerite, coxa, basis ornamentation as in male, but with inner spiniform seta (lamellar hook missing), outer seta missing; exp and enp similar to those of male in shape, ornamentation and armature. P2 (Fig. 11e). Intercoxal sclerite, coxa, basis and exp as in male. Enp similar in shape and ornamentation to that of male, but subapical seta shorter. P3 (Fig. 11f). Intercoxal sclerite small, trapezoidal, with concave margin, bare. Coxa with outer spinular row. Basis with outer spinular row; exp two-segmented: exp-1 slightly longer than exp-2, with distolateral curved unipinnate spine, transversal row of spinules at �� and �� of outer margin, distal spinular row, hyaline frill on inner distal corner; exp-2 with subapical outer unipinnate spine and apical bipinnate seta, spine length about �� of seta, with distal spinular row and hyaline frill on inner distal corner. Enp represented by thin and pointed segment, much shorter than half of corresponding exp-1. P4 (Fig. 11g). Intercoxal sclerite, coxa and exp as in male. Basis bare. Enp represented by thin cylindrical segment, slightly shorter than �� the length of corresponding exp-1, ending in spiniform seta with spinules around the insertion. P5 (Figs 11h, 12a). Fused to intercoxal sclerite, represented by cuticular plate more elongated than in male, with inner spiniform process shorter than in male, outer short setae transformed in spiniform process, remaining ornamentation represented by two setae, innermost shortest and long basipodal seta. P6 (Fig. 12a). Vestigial, fused into simple cuticular plate, covering gonopore, unornamented and unarmed. Variability One male specimen with a distal row of three spinules on the outer margin of P3���Exp-1 (Fig. 10d). A second specimen with three spinules on one P3 (Fig. 10e) and one spinule on the other P3 (Fig. 10f)., Published as part of Bruno, Maria Cristina, Cottarelli, Vezio, Marrone, Federico, Grasso, Rosario, Stefani, Erika, Vecchioni, Luca & Spena, Maria Teresa, 2020, Morphological and molecular characterization of three new Parastenocarididae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida) from caves in Southern Italy, pp. 1-46 in European Journal of Taxonomy 689 on pages 19-27, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2020.689, http://zenodo.org/record/3961738, {"references":["Schminke H. K. 2010. High-level phylogenetic relationships within Parastenocarididae (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). Crustaceana 83: 343 - 367. https: // doi. org / 10.1163 / 001121610 X 12627655658168"]}

Energy transition is often described as the shift from deterritorialised models developed in tandem with the rise of capitalism towards a paradigm based on small-scale infrastructures and short supply chains. In this new paradigm the local dimension is pivotal. This paper takes a self-reflective stance on situated research conducted with local communities in Italy, Indonesia and Australia. The three rural communities are characterised by community ownership of energy production sites (past, current, and future ownership respectively), and by the copresence of alternative visions of energy sustainability among the locals. Drawing on the research experiences the paper reflects on the interrelated methodological, epistemological, and practical challenges encountered. Immersive and participatory approaches enabled the research teams to avoid prescriptive approach to the research, to access local understandings of energy and sustainability, and to gain insights into local interactions between multiple forms of knowledge and power. Across the three cases, methodological and epistemological challenges call for a careful consideration of the role of research and its interaction with power dynamics, capacity of collecting voices and knowledges, and democratization goals. Such challenges are discussed taking into account the "transferability" of methods and approaches across space, time and related project specificities.

Bioproduction of chemical compounds is of great interest for modern industries, as it reduces their production costs and ecological impact. With the use of synthetic biology, metabolic engineering and enzyme engineering tools, the yield of production can be improved to reach mass production and cost-effectiveness expectations. In this study, we explore the bioproduction of D-psicose, also known as D-allulose, a rare non-toxic sugar and a sweetener present in nature in low amounts. D-psicose has interesting properties and seemingly the ability to fight against obesity and type 2 diabetes. We developed a biosensor-based enzyme screening approach as a tool for enzyme selection that we benchmarked with the Clostridium cellulolyticum D-psicose 3-epimerase for the production of D-psicose from D-fructose. For this purpose, we constructed and characterized seven psicose responsive biosensors based on previously uncharacterized transcription factors and either their predicted promoters or an engineered promoter. In order to standardize our system, we created the Universal Biosensor Chassis, a construct with a highly modular architecture that allows rapid engineering of any transcription factor-based biosensor. Among the seven biosensors, we chose the one displaying the most linear behavior and the highest increase in fluorescence fold change. Next, we generated a library of D-psicose 3-epimerase mutants by error-prone PCR and screened it using the biosensor to select gain of function enzyme mutants, thus demonstrating the framework’s efficiency.

Introduction Over the past few years, there has been a progressive increase in foreign labour force in agricultural sector in Italy, which has reached over 1 15 000 units (14.2% of total employment in agriculture), of which 36% coming from EU countries, while 64% from non-EU countries. In case of migrant workers factors such as lack of knowledge of occupational safety and health (OSH) legislation, language knowledge difficulties, young age, lack of information and training and, consequently, reduced perception of work-related risks, could further increase the risk for health due to both specific risks of the activities carried out and the peculiar characteristics of the work organisation. The present study aims at detecting the perception of OSH risk in agriculture in migrant workers as a contribution to the identification of training needs. Methods With the support of cultural mediators, an ad hoc questionnaire was submitted to 402 migrant workers employed in agriculture in Lombardy Region. Results The interviewees have different nationalities (60% Indian, 15% Moroccan, 15% Bengali), with mostly seasonal employment contracts (96%); the age most represented is 25–34 years (41%). Over 56% generally evaluate their health ‘very good’. About 73% of respondents believe that there are no risks for OSH and 80% of them believe that are not personally exposed. Over 62% is very/completely agree that the lack of knowledge and awareness of workers’ dangers in the workplace contributes to an injury. Conclusions Preliminary results of the study requires a secondary analysis in order to contribute to the implementation and optimisation of preventative tools in consideration of the peculiarities that characterise the agricultural sector.

Stammericaris trinacriae (Pesce, Galassi, Cottarelli, 1989) (Figs. 2, 6–9, 13, 14) Locality. Italy, Sicily, Palermo province, Entella Cave (cadastral number: Si Pa 328), from different rimstone pools. Material examined. Twenty males, 10 of which completely dissected, each mounted on one slide labelled Stammericaris trinacriae, male (NHMUK 2017. 63 - 72, DIBAF), pool number 6, 23/X/2012; three males, dissected, mounted each on one slide labelled Stammericaris trinacriae male (NHMUK 2017. 73 -75), pool number 3, 23/X/2012; one male, undissected, mounted on one slide labelled Stammericaris trinacriae male (NHMUK 2017. 76), pool number 1, 23/X/2012; one male, undissected, mounted on one slide labelled Stammericaris trinacriae male (NHMUK 2017. 77), pool number 7, 23/X/2012; one female, dissected, mounted on one slide labelled Stammericaris trinacriae female (NHMUK 2017. 78), pool number 19, 05/I/2014; 10 females, five of which dissected, each mounted on one slide labelled Stammericaris trinacriae female (DIBAF) pool number 6, 23/X/2012; one female, undissected, mounted on one slide labelled Stammericaris trinacriae female (NHMUK 2017. 79), pool number 1, 23/X/2012; one female, dissected, mounted on one slide labelled Stammericaris trinacriae female (NHMUK 2017.80), pool number 8, 23/X/2012; one female, dissected, mounted on one slide labelled Stammericaris trinacriae female (NHMUK 2017. 81); 132 specimens preserved in 90% ethanol in vial labelled Stammericaris trinacriae, pool number 3, 27/XII/2012 (NHMUK 2017. 82-91); 24 specimens preserved in 90% ethanol in vial labelled Stammericaris trinacriae, pool number 15, 01/III/2014 (NHMUK 2017. 92-101); 10 specimens preserved in 90% ethanol in vial labelled Stammericaris trinacriae, pool number 15, 05/I/2014 (NHMUK 2017. 102 -111); three females (05/XII/2013, pool 15); two females and one male (05/IV/2014, pool 19) prepared for scanning electron microscopy, on two stubs (CIME). Remaining material (not examined): all remaining specimens (3146 males, 3718 females, 517 copepodites) from same locality, preserved in vials with 70% ethanol and glicerin (DIBAF). All material collected by RG and MTS. Male holotype and female paratype loaned from L. Pesce’s collection, University of L’Aquila (Italy). Description. Male. Body unpigmented, nauplius eye absent. Total body length, measured from tip of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami (excluding caudal setae) from 366 to 438 µm, mean 411 µm (n = 10). Habitus (Figs. 2B, 12C) cylindrical and slender, without any demarcation between prosome and urosome; prosome to urosome ratio: 0.69. Free pedigerous somites without any lateral or dorsal expansions, all connected by welldeveloped arthrodial membranes. Integument weakly sclerotized, without cuticular pits, ornamented with sensilla on all somites except preanal one. Cephalothorax (Figs. 2A, 12D) and urosomites without cuticular windows (Fig. 2B). Cephalothorax (Fig. 2B) representing almost 15.7 % of total body length (measured from tip of rostrum to end of caudal ramus). Anal somite (Figs. 6A, B) with pair of large dorsal sensilla at base of anal operculum, pair of cuticular ventral pores (one pore on each side) near the insertion of caudal rami. Anal operculum (Figs. 6A, B) well-developed, with slightly concave distal margin. Anal sinus wide open, with spinular rows (Fig. 6B). Spermatophore (Fig. 6C) about 1.5 times as long as genital somite. Caudal rami (Figs. 6A, B, 13A): longer than anal somite, approximately cylindrical, slightly divergent; length/ width ratio: 5.1, with distal pore between setae IV and V. Anterolateral accessory seta (I), and posterolateral seta (III) subequal in length, anterolateral seta (II) longer than seta I and III (length seta/length caudal ramus: 0.36); all three setae inserted together distally at 4/5 length of the caudal ramus. Outer terminal seta (IV) pinnate (length seta/ length caudal ramus: 1.29); inner terminal seta (V) apically pinnate, without fracture plane. Terminal accessory seta (VI) short (length seta/length caudal ramus: 0.40) and smooth. Dorsal seta (VII) articulate, inserted distally at 4/5 length of the caudal ramus as setae I–III. Rostrum (Fig. 6D): small, triangular, almost reaching distal margin of first antennular segment, ornamented with two dorsal sensilla. Antennule (Figs. 6D, 6E, 12D): prehensile, eight-segmented, pocket-knife type sensu Schminke (2010). First segment short with transversal row of spinules, second segment longest, with six setae, the longest seta uniplumose. Third segment with four distal bare setae; fourth segment reduced to a small sclerite with two short setae (Fig. 6E). Fifth segment enlarged, with inner protrusion, which is approximately conical and folded at the tip, carrying two small spiniform setae; distal tubercle with two equal setae and one large aesthetasc, restricted at midlength, reaching to half of eighth segment, one longer seta inserted at base of tubercle. Sixth segment bare, fused to previous one. Seventh segment bare, distal anterior corner protruding as a triangular, pointed apophysis. Eighth segment with seven setae and apical acrothek represented by two subequal setae and a slender shorter aesthetasc, approximately as long as segment. Armature formula: 1-[0], 2-[1 uniplumose + 5 bare], 3-[4 bare], 4-[2 bare], 5-[5 + ae], 6-[0], 7-[0], 8-[7 bare + (2 + ae)]. Antenna (Figs. 6F, 12D): coxa unarmed; allobasis with transverse row of spinules on inner margin. Exopod represented by a small segment, with very long pinnate apical seta. Endopod bearing two short lateral, one short subdistal, and four longer distal elements, two of them geniculate; all elements with long spinules near their insertions. Labrum (Fig. 7A): large and rounded, with convex and smooth anterior surface, narrow cutting edge, cutting edge with apical row of slender denticles. Mandible (Fig. 7B): coxal gnathobase bare, with pore, cutting edge with apical teeth and small supabical pinnate seta. One-segmented palp, with two distal setae of subequal length. Maxillule (Fig. 7C): praecoxal arthrite with three distal, curved robust spines apically denticled, one subdistal curved seta, one distal spinule row. Coxal endite short, with one apical thin seta reaching to the end of arthrite. Basis cylindrical, with two distal bare setae of same length. Endopod and exopod absent (fused to basis without trace). Maxilla (Fig 7D): syncoxa with two endites, proximal endite short, with one thin seta; distal endite cylindrical, longer, armed apically with one enlarged pinnate seta, two long bare setae; allobasis prolonged into apical pinnate claw; endopod represented by small segment fused at the base, with two long setae of equal length. Maxilliped (Fig. 7E): prehensile. Syncoxa small and unarmed; basis slim and elongate with spinular row along inner margin; endopod represented by distally unipinnate claw. P1 (Figs. 7F, 12D, 12E): with smooth and small intercoxal sclerite; basis armed with single slender seta on outer margin and a hook on the inner margin of basis; ornamented with transverse row of minute spinules at base of outer seta; transverse spinular row along distal margin on anterior surface, between exopod and endopod. Exopod three-segmented, slightly shorter than endopod, second segment shortest; exp-1 with thin and slightly curved pinnate seta on outer distal corner; exp-3 with two geniculate and one normal pinnate apical setae, and one subapical pinnate seta. Endopod two-segmented; enp-1 as long as the first two segments of the corresponding exopod, with two transversal rows of spinules on the outer margin, two spinules at 3/4 of the inner margin. Enp-2 thinner than enp-1 and as long as of enp-1, with longitudinal row of spinules on the outer margin and two spinules at 3/4 of the inner margin; long, geniculate pinnate seta, and shorter pinnate seta on apex. P2 (Fig. 7G): with smooth and large intercoxal sclerite, twice as wide as long. Basis unarmed, with spinular row on outer margin. Exopod three-segmented, exp-1 with strong distolateral pinnate spine and transversal spinular row at of the outer margin (Fig. 12D); first and second segments of same length, exp-3 shortest; exp-3 armed with unipinnate subapical outer spine, apical unipinnate spine and bipinnate seta. Endopod one-segmented, about 1/3 the length of the corresponding exp-1, represented by cylindrical segment, with apical seta about as long as segment, and two apical short spinules about the length of apical spinule. P3 (Figs. 7H, 7I, 12F): intercoxal sclerite taller than wide, trapezoidal, unornamented, and with slightly concave distal margin. Basis robust, with long, slender, smooth outer seta and outer row of transversal spinules, inner row of transversal spinules below endopod insertion. Endopod reduced to long thin seta. Exp-1 length/width ratio: 2.9; inner margin with conical proximal tubercle, and long, downward-pointed distal process. Exp-2 fused with exp-1 and prolonged into very long apophysis bent inwards, with blunt round tip, exp-2 and apophysis twice as long as exp-1. Distal thumb represented by thin and pointed segment, reaching to almost 1/2 of the apophysis. P4 (Fig. 7J): intercoxal sclerite smaller than in P2 or P3, with concave, smooth distal margin. Basis armed with single slender seta on outer margin; ornamented with row of spinules at base of outer seta, and one short seta and two spinules of same length and slightly curved outwards aligned along inner margin. Exopod three-segmented, slender, all segments approximately of the same length; exp-1 slightly curved inwards, with distolateral pinnate spine; exp-3 armed with outer pinnate spine and long apical pinnate seta, spine length less than ¼of seta length. Endopod one-segmented, longer than corresponding exp-1, represented by a basal plate distally enlarged into an inner pointed protrusion ending in a fused spinule; a second spinule is inserted at half of the outer margin. The endopod extends on the distal outer corner into a long bipinnate process (fused seta). P5 (Figs. 7K, 13B): fused to intercoxal sclerite, represented by two trapezoidal cuticular plates with innerdistal corner produced into short and thin pointed tip. Armature on free distal margin, from inner to outer: three bare setae of different length, outermost shortest, and long basipodal seta. P6 (Fig. 7K): vestigial, fused into simple cuticular plate, unornamented and unarmed. Female. Body length, excluding caudal setae, from 363 to 446 m, mean 391 m (n = 6); length of specimen in Fig. 1B: 454 m. Habitus as in Fig. 13C, ornamentation of somites, pigmentation, and lack of nauplius eye as in male, except genital and first urosomite fused into double-somite. Prosome/urosome ratio: 0.71. Genital doublesomite (Fig. 8A) without any trace of subdivision, longer than previous and following somites. Genital field (Figs. 8A, 14D) broader than tall, occupying anterior ventral half of genital double-somite; single genital aperture covered by fused vestigial sixth legs; median copulatory pore located medially at 1/3 of double-somite length. Anal somite and anal operculum as in male (Fig. 14E). Caudal rami (Figs. 8B, 14F) shape similar to those of male but shorter, length/width ratio: 4.7. Ornamentation and armature similar to those in male but setae IV to VI proportionally shorter and seta VII proportionally longer; length seta IV/length caudal ramus: 0.54; length seta VI/length caudal ramus: 0.37, length seta VII/length caudal ramus: 0.49. Rostrum, antenna, oral appendages (Fig. 13D), maxilliped as in male. Antennule (Fig. 8D): seven-segmented, aesthetasc on fourth segment shorter than in male, reaching below end of seventh segment. First segment bare. Second segment longest. Apical acrothek represented by two setae of different length and slender aesthetasc, almost as long as aesthetasc on segment four. Armature formula: 1-[0], 2-[1 pinnate +3 bare], 3-[5bare], 4-[2 + ae], 5-[1], 6-[1], 7-[7 bare + (2 + ae)]. Several setae transformed, ending in a small hollow disk (Fig. 13E). P1 (Figs. 8E, 13F): basis, ornamentation and armature as in male except with inner curved seta apically transformed, and pore near outer seta insertion; endopod and exopod similar in shape to the male, but endopod slightly longer than exopod. P2 (Figs. 8F, 14A): coxa and basis as in male with spinular row on ventral side, near endopod insertion. Ornamentation and armature of exopod as in male. Endopod similar in shape and ornamentation to that of the male, apical seta proportionally longer. P3 (Figs. 9A, 14B): intercoxal sclerite taller than wide, with concave margin, smooth. Basis with outer seta and spinular row, and spinular row on ventral side, near endopod insertion (Fig. 14B); exopod two-segmented, segments of same length. Exp-1 ornamented with spinular row along outer margin, with distolateral pinnate spine; exp-2 with subapical outer pinnate spine and apical pinnate seta. Endopod (Fig. 14B) represented by a thin and pointed segment, with spinules along margin, 0.8 times as long as corresponding exp-1. P4 (Figs. 9B, 14C): intercoxal sclerite, coxa, exopod as in male. Basis with spinular row on ventral side, near endopod insertion. Endopod represented by a thin cylindrical segment, ending in a pointed tip, pinnate in the distal half, slightly shorter than the corresponding exp-1. P5 (Figs. 8A, 14D): fused to intercoxal sclerite, represented by two cuticular plates much longer and narrower than in the male, with proximal large pore and inner-distal corner produced into long and strong pointed tip. Armature on free distal margin, from inner to outer: three bare setae of different length, outermost shortest. P6 (Fig. 8A): vestigial, fused into simple cuticular plate, covering gonopore, unornamented and unarmed. Variability. Two females with transformed caudal rami (Fig. 8C): length/width ratio: ~3; armature modified as follows: seta I, II, III subequal and very short, seta IV transformed in a hooked spine, seta V massive, conical, and distally pinnate; setae VI and VII shortened. Amended diagnosis of the genus Stammericaris Jakobi, 1972. Male antennule 8-segmented and of the pocket-knife type. Basis P1 male with hook, with hook and seta, without armature (but see note below) near endopod insertion. Basis P1 female with small seta or without armature (but see note below). Endopod P3 female half as long as or shorter than first segment of corresponding exopod. Outer margin of P3 male exp-1 proximally and distally with group of several spinules, or spinules only proximally (in one case) or without spinules (one case); apophysis long with a rounded tip and slightly curved inwards, being twice as long as the thumb or even longer. Male P4 basis with an inner row of 1-4 curved spinules decreasing in size laterally; P4 male endopod a curved plate with a pointed inner tip carrying at its outer border two outgrowths, in most cases the distal one is a feathered or plain seta. Caudal rami cylindrical almost as long as anal somite, group of lateral setae located at end of rami. Note: in all recently-described species the P1 basis of males and females is medially armed; it is very likely that this character was not noted in early descriptions., Published as part of Bruno, Maria Cristina, Cottarelli, Vezio, Hauffe, Heidi Christine, Rossi, Chiara, Obertegger, Ulrike, Grasso, Rosario & Spena, Maria Teresa, 2017, Morphological and molecular analyses of epikarstic Parastenocarididae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida) from two Sicilian caves, with description of a new Stammericaris in Zootaxa 4350 (2) on pages 261-272, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4350.2.3, http://zenodo.org/record/1053246, {"references":["Schminke, H. K. (2010) High - level phylogenetic relationships within Parastenocarididae (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). Crustaceana, 83, 343 - 367. https: // doi. org / 10.1163 / 001121610 X 12627655658168","Jakobi, H. (1972) Trends (Enp. P 4) innerhalb der Parastenocarididen (Copepoda Harpacticoidea). Crustaceana, 22, 127 - 146. https: // doi. org / 10.1163 / 156854072 X 00390"]}

Prior studies have provided little evidence of earnings management activities although research designs have included the widespread use of strong incentives to manage earnings; i.e., a widespread approach in the earnings management literature is to first identify conditions in which managers’ incentives to manage earnings are likely to be strong, and then test whether patterns of earnings management are observable. Furthermore, the evidence provided by prior studies is often conflicted on what motivates managers to manage earnings. This chapter shifts away from the contradictory conclusions drawn on the causes of earnings management presented by prior positivist research (discussed in Chap. 2). It introduces critical realism as an alternative to the positivist philosophical perspective to investigate the earnings management phenomenon. Finally, it provides a critical realist evaluation of mainstream earnings management literature and related incentives (or identified causes) that have been proposed by prior studies for managing earnings.

This chapter seeks to describe the field of inquiry by defining the concepts of earnings quality, earnings management, fraud, and earnings manipulation. It presents the earnings management phenomenon, specifically, from whence it comes. It reviews the mainstream studies, and focuses on two types of earnings management: accruals earnings management and real activities earnings management. In addition, studies related to fraudulent financial reporting (or non-generally accepted accounting principles, i.e. non-GAAP earnings management) will be presented and discussed as well. Furthermore, this chapter presents studies on managerial incentives for earnings management. The most important incentives (or causes) for managing earnings are discussed and the contradictory results provided by some of them highlighted. Finally, a few offsetting causes that may interfere with these main incentives for managing earnings are presented.

Previous research on how financial crisis affects managers’ earnings management behavior has resulted in different scenarios with inconclusive results. This Chapter presents both the positivist and the critical realist approach to the research question. To address the ambiguity in the findings in the literature, the present study used a mainstream approach, with the results showing no statistical support for the hypothesis that financial crisis influences earnings management. More specifically, results indicate that managers’ earnings behavior does not differ from the pre-crisis to the crisis periods. Further, it presents critical realism as an alternative to mainstream approach. The study argues against the existence of a causal law based on a constant conjunction model (i.e., whenever a financial crisis happens, earnings management happens) and concludes that financial crisis cannot be seen as the cause of earnings management. Finally, it suggests exploring other structures at work that might be responsible for earnings management.

Nella consapevolezza del contributo che un’azienda sociale puo rivestire per lo sviluppo di un Paese, si e ritenuto di analizzare il ruolo del soggetto economico di un’azienda sociale nella sua particolare veste "not for profit". L’azienda sociale, al pari dell’azienda "for profit", e un’organizzazione di persone, di beni e di servizi che attua in maniera continua e sistematica un processo produttivo da cui scaturiscono beni e/o servizi da collocare al suo esterno (magari in specifiche tipologie di mercati) per la soddisfazione di taluni bisogni. Se il concetto di soggetto economico, ristretto o allargato che sia, e quello per conto del quale l’attivita si svolge ed esiste la possibilita di assegnare allo stesso un compenso, proporzionale ai risultati conseguiti (Giannessi, 1960), nelle aziende costituite in base al decreto legislativo 155 del 2006, cio non e realizzabile. La modesta diffusione in Italia del modello di azienda in commento e, a nostro parere, dovuta anche all’impossibilita di distribuire il profitto come un elemento "a priori". Il fine dello studio e individuare da un lato - attraverso la comparazione con alcuni --istituti - simili presenti a livello internazionale (Regno Unito, Belgio, Finlandia e Stati Uniti d’America) - le scelte operate a tal proposito, dall’altro cercare di capire se il concetto elaborato dalla dottrina economico aziendale di congrua remunerazione del soggetto economico possa essere applicato anche all’azienda sociale, potendo essa, in caso di risposta affermativa, aspirare al raggiungimento di un equilibrio economico a valere nel tempo (Giannessi, 1960) e dunque resistere ai processi di entropia positiva.

Nella ricerca sul genere, la proposta di una prospettiva teorica innovativa - centrata sulla critica al riduzionismo biologista e all'essenzialismo - si č accompagnata a una riflessione critica sull'approccio cognitivoe sulla sua caratterizzazione di genere, il. Tale riflessione viene discussa nell'articolo in relazione a temi epistemologici - il realismo e la svolta linguistica - e metodologici, relativi al confronto tra metodi qualitativi e quantitativi. Dall'analisi emerge come alcune delle questioni poste, in particolare dalla psicologia femminista, quali la soggettività del ricercatore, il ruolo del contesto, il tema del potere nelle relazioni ricercatori-ricercati, costituiscano dimensioni problematiche tuttora rilevanti per chi fa ricerca psicosociale.

Perineural administration of thiamine, via axonal flow, could strenghthen synthesis of ACh in the dorsal horn inhibitory interneurons, thus potentiating analgesia. The purpose of the present retrospective analysis is therefore to investigate whether adding perineurally 2 mg/Kg of thiamine to 0.75% levobupivacaine in patients undergoing middle interscalene block may prolong the duration of analgesia.The hospital records of all ASA status 1-2 patients, undergoing a single-shot interscalene block for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair from January 2011 to May 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. All blocks were performed with 0.75% levobupivacaine or a solution of thiamine hydrochloride and 0.75% levobupivacaine. The local anesthetic solution, postoperative visual analogue score for pain at rest and rescue medication were registered. We calculated the time interval elapsing between block anesthetic mixture injection and the patient's first analgesic requirement, ie time to end of analgesia. Eventual postoperative side effects were also reported.59 patients received 0.4 ml/Kg of 0.75% levobupivacaine (Group L) and 51 patients received a mixture of 2 mg/Kg of thiamine hydrocloride (maximum dose 200 mg) with 0.4 ml/Kg of 0.75% levobupivacaine (Group B1). Tea was 11.4 ± 3.0 hours in Group L versus 17.6 ± 3.0 hours in Group B1 (p0.001). The scores for pain in the two Groups at the time of the first analgesic rescue were comparable.The present retrospective analysis suggests that thiamine helps to prolong postoperative analgesia when added to the local anesthetic solution. Further prospective studies are necessary to confirm these preliminary results.Word count: 250.

We know that animals live in a world dominated by bacteria. In the last twenty years we have learned that microbes are essential regulators of mucosal immunity. Bacterias, archeas and viruses influence different aspects of mucosal development and function. Yet the literature mainly covers findings obtained in mammals. In this review, we focus on two major themes that emerge from the comparative analysis of mammals and amphibians. These themes concern: i) the structure and functions of lymphoid organs and immune cells in amphibians, with a focus on the gut mucosal immune system; and ii) the characteristics of the amphibian microbiota and its influence on mucosal immunity. Lastly, we propose to use Xenopus tadpoles as an alternative small animal model to improve the fundamental knowledge on immunological functions of gut microbiota.

Chitin and chitosan oligomers have diverse biological activities with potentially valuable applications in fields like medicine, cosmetics, or agriculture. These properties may depend not only on the degrees of polymerization and acetylation, but also on a specific pattern of acetylation (PA) that cannot be controlled when the oligomers are produced by chemical hydrolysis. To determine the influence of the PA on the biological activities, defined chitosan oligomers in sufficient amounts are needed. Chitosan oligomers with specific PA can be produced by enzymatic deacetylation of chitin oligomers, but the diversity is limited by the low number of chitin deacetylases available. We have produced specific chitosan oligomers which are deacetylated at the first two units starting from the non-reducing end by the combined use of two different chitin deacetylases, namely NodB from Rhizobium sp. GRH2 that deacetylates the first unit and COD from Vibrio cholerae that deacetylates the second unit starting from the non-reducing end. Both chitin deacetylases accept the product of each other resulting in production of chitosan oligomers with a novel and defined PA. When extended to further chitin deacetylases, this approach has the potential to yield a large range of novel chitosan oligomers with a fully defined architecture.

Sodium depth profiles were determined in water-leached glass samples with molar composition 20Na2O · 10RO ·x Al2O3· (70 - x)SiO2 (RO = CaO, MgO, and ZnO) using secondary ion mass spectrometry. The leaching of sodium ions decreases with increasing Al2O3 content in all three glass systems. For x= 0 the leaching is hardly affected by the nature of the divalent cation. For x= 5 and 10 the corrosion resistance is highest for the glass containing ZnO, and for the glasses containing ZnO and MgO, respectively. These glasses correspond to those with the smallest fraction of NBOs. From all these results it is concluded that the nonbridging oxygen atoms play an important role in promoting the leaching of a glass.

Interaction between the renin-angiotensin system and the sympathetic nervous system has been proposed to be like a physiological regulation mechanism. The present work was designed to study the cross talk between angiotensin II and adrenergic receptors on the smooth muscle contractile response and the endothelium influence in this phenomenon. Homologous and endothelium independent desensitization of angiotensin II-contractile response was observed. Treatment with noradrenaline between two cumulative doses response curves (CDRC) to angiotensin II caused a rightward shift of the second CDRC in unrubbed arteries and increased the maximal response in rubbed arteries. Prazosin blocked these effects. No homologous desensitization of noradrenaline contractile response was found. Treatment with angiotensin II between two CDRC to noradrenaline caused a loss of affinity in the second CDRC in unrubbed arteries. Losartan was able to avoid this phenomenon. Maximal response was enhanced both in arteries with and without endothelium treated or not with angiotensin II. Results demonstrate homologous and endothelium-independent desensitization of the contractile response to angiotensin II but not to noradrenaline. In addition, heterologous and endothelium-dependent desensitization induced by noradrenaline and angiotensin II on the contractile response to each other was found. Furthermore, results provided the first evidence that there is an endothelium-dependent cross talk between alpha1-adrenergic and angiotensin II receptors in smooth muscle of rabbit aorta.

XBRL is in an increasing number of countries defined as the obligate format for the transmission of financial data to authorities by legal requirements. The legal requirement itself refers solely to the transmission of the information in XBRL format. How a formatting of a company’s report becomes realized is not regulated. This decision has to be done by the decision makers of the affected companies. There is no generally recommended realization or global valid implementation process. Each realization (bolt-on, built-in, and embedded) comprises a specific realization effort and offers different potential benefits for the implementing organization. Therefore, it is necessary to decide about the integration depth within an organization. The paper presents a methodology to support the decision process for the adoption of XBRL into the organization. By doing design science research, the constructed artifact enables a structured decision based on facts, individual properties, and needs of the organization.

The financial crisis resulted in a loss of trust; not only within the investment or banking sector, but in general between creditors and debtors, because many organizations faced insolvency. Such a financial situation can even result in a company’s bankruptcy. Therefore it is necessary to get a realistic understanding of the solvency or the possible insolvency of a company. The support of a decision on a debtor’s creditability is not yet sufficiently provided by the most prominent method (Altman’s Z’’-score). The paper presents a procedure called Break-Up Analysis (BUA). It helps to decide on the solvency of a company. The comparison of the BUA to Altman’s Z’’-score shows an improvement of the identification of solvent and insolvent companies by 22 %. The BUA enables herewith to regain trust in business transaction by not identifying only the insolvent companies but the solvent ones as well.

This paper analyzes why corporate governance matters for stock returns if the stock market prices the underlying managerial agency problem correctly. Our theory assumes that strict corporate governance prevents managers from diverting cash flows, but reduces incentives for managerial effort. In capital market equilibrium, this trade-off has implications for the firm's earnings, stock returns, and managerial ownership, because governance impacts the firm's risk-return structure. In particular, the strictness of corporate governance is negatively related to earnings and positively to ß;. Various empirical tests with U.S. data using the governance index of Gompers, Ishii, and Metrick (2003) yield results consistent with these predictions.

Fiersiphontina gen. nov. Diagnosis. Female. Body cylindrical, caudal rami narrowing distally, shorter than anal somite, carrying three distinct hook-like process anterior to seta VII, one small process anterior to seta I, one process on distal outer corner, two ventral distal processes, and seven setae; seta V robust, dorsally bent, and strongly sclerotised. Genital field with one small seta on each P 6 vestige and copulatory pore distinctly posterior to the transverse ridge. Antennule 6 - segmented, first segment with blunt process on outer margin, second segment with large, posteriorly directed hook along outer margin, aesthetasc on fourth and sixth segments. Antennary exopod one-segmented, carrying four subequal pinnate setae. Exopod P 1 one-segmented; endopod P 2 represented by one seta and exopod fused to basis carrying one naked seta and one strong bipinnate spiniform seta; endopod P 3 and P 4 represented by small tubercle carrying one short seta; exopod P 3 one-segmented and exopod P 4 two-segmented; P 5 distinct, with three setae on exopod, basis with one seta on outer peduncle, endopodal lobe with two setae, exopod with three setae. Male. No sexual dimorphism in P 1, P 3, P 4; sexual dimorphism: antennule seven-segmented, aesthetasc on fifth and seventh segments; exopod P 2 vestigial, with one apical strong spiniform seta and two inner sparsely plumose setae; P 5 fused, with three long setae on the exopod and very reduced naked endopodal lobe; P 6 vestigial, asymmetrical, right P 6 with reduced, non-functional plate, left P 6 with large internal plate articulated with the somite, each P 6 with a process carrying two setae. Type and only species. Fiersiphontina sensillata (Wells & Rao, 1987) (= Laophontina sensillata Wells & Rao, 1987: pp. 184���186, figs 149���150), here designated. The diagnosis of the genus coincides with that of the only known and type species of the genus, and must, therefore, be considered provisional. Etymology. The generic name is dedicated to Dr. Frank Fiers, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium, for his important contribution to the knowledge of Laophontidae. The generic name is a combination of his name and the suffix ��� phontina commonly used in genus type names of this family. Gender feminine., Published as part of Bruno, Maria Cristina & Cottarelli, Vezio, 2011, Proposal of Fiersiphontina gen. nov., redescription of Fiersiphontina sensillata comb. nov., and new data on the distribution of Spiniferaphonte (Copepoda, Harpacticoida, Laophontidae), pp. 1-19 in Zootaxa 2809 on pages 2-3, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.277103, {"references":["Wells, J. B. J. & Rao, G. C. (1987) Littoral Harpacticoida (Crustacea: Copepoda) from Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Memoirs of the Zoological Survey of India, 16, 1 - 385."]}

Spiniferaphonte cf. ornata Gheerardyn & Fiers, 2007 (Fig. 8) Material examined. One female (DSAUT 126) mounted on one slide, from washout of coral sand and fragments, hand-collected by snorkeling at 5 m depth, in front of beach near Sabang Village where Fiersiphontina sensillata comb. nov. was collected, Eastern Mindoro Province, Philippines, 13 ° 31 ’ 17 ” N; 120 ° 58 ’ 23 ” E, 20 March 1998. Material collected by V. Cottarelli. Description of female. Total body length, measured from anterior margin of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami = 711 μm. Habitus, body ornamentation, rostrum A 1 (Fig. 8 A), A 2, mouth parts, P 1, as in S. ornata. Anal operculum: with 11 tooth-like processes (Fig. 8 B). Caudal rami (Fig. 8 B): armature as in S. ornata but seta V proportionally longer and thinner, one tubepore adjacent to seta VI (arrowed in figure). P 2 (Fig. 8 C): exopod one-segmented narrowing at tip, with three apical plumose setae, two innermost shorter and of same length; one strong bipinnate spine on outer distal corner. P 3 (Fig. 8 D): basis with one pore; exopod three-segmented, first and second segments with one very strong bipinnate spine on outer distal corner; third segment with three apical and one inner pinnate setae of subequal length, inner seta inserted at midlength of segment. P 4 (Fig. 8 E): exopod three-segmented, first segment with very strong bipinnate spine on outer distal corner; second segment with long bipinnate spiniform seta on outer distal corner; third segment with four pinnate setae of different length. P 5 (Fig. 8 F): exopod shorther than in S. ornata, with similar armature but three subequal distal pinnate setae and one longer and pinnate subapical outer seta. Endopodal lobe with four setae as in S. ornata, but less developed. Remarks. Only the characters which distinguish this specimen from the original description are given above. Spiniferaphonte cf. ornata differs in body length (711 µm vs 564–610 µm); the morphology and armature of P 2 -P 5 and anal operculum (stronger spines on the P 2 -P 4 exopods, one additional seta on 3 -exp P 3, a much longer P 4 endopod, and an anal operculum with more processes on the distal margin in Spiniferaphonte cf. ornata). The caudal rami and P 5 have additional differences in setal/spinal length (the caudal rami have an additional secretory tube pore, not recorded in Spiniferaphonte ornata). These differences might be large enough to attribute Spiniferaphonte cf. ornata to a new species, but the availability of only one specimen does not allow us to evaluate the possible intraspecific variability, or to describe the male morphology. As a consequence, we postpone a more precise definition of the taxonomic status of this specimen until we are able to collect more material.

Fiersiphontina sensillata (Wells & Rao, 1987) comb. nov. (Figs 1���7) Synonymy. Laophontina sensillata n. sp. ��� Wells & Rao, 1987: pp. 184���186, figs 149���150. Laophontina sensillata Wells & Rao���Mielke, 1997: pp. 227���228, fig. 4; Wells, 2007; pp. 62, 433, 456. Laophonte sensillata Mielke, 1997: p 228. Material examined. Ten females (NHMUK 2011.696, 2011.697, 2011.698, DSAUT 101-107), eleven males (NHMUK 2011.699, 2011.700, DSAUT 108-116), one C 3 (DSAUT 117) and one C 4 copepodid (DSAUT 118), each mounted on one slide, from the interstitial habitat of a coral sandy beach near Sabang Village, Eastern Mindoro Province, Philippines, 13 �� 31 ��� 17 ��� N; 120 �� 58 ��� 23 ��� E, 20 March 1998. One male (NHMUK 2011.701) mounted on slide, from the interstitial habitat of a coral sandy beach on the southern shore of North Pandan Island, Western Mindoro Province, Philippines, 12 �� 51 ��� 24 ��� N; 120 �� 45 ��� 12 ��� E, 26 January 2006. Two males (NHMUK 2011.702, DSAUT 119) each mounted on one slide, from the interstitial habitat of a coral sandy beach in Sumilon Island, Visayas Archipelago, Philippines, 13 �� 33 ��� 22 ��� N; 121 �� 03��� 23 ��� E, 13 January 1985. One male (DSAUT 120) and two C 4 copepodids (DSAUT 121, 122), each mounted on one slide, from the interstitial habitat of a coral sandy beach in Verde Island, Batangas Province, Philippines, 9 �� 251 ��� 45 ��� N; 123 �� 23 ��� 35 ��� E, 14 February 2004. Two males (NHMUK 2011.703, DSAUT 123) and one female (NHMUK 2011.704), each mounted on one slide, from the interstitial habitat of a coral sandy beach in Salag Do-Ong beach, Visayas Archipelago, Siquijor Island, Philippines, 9 �� 12 ��� 47 ��� N; 123 �� 40 ��� 59 ��� E, 5 April 1998. One C 5 female copepodid (DSAUT 124), mounted on one slide, from the interstitial habitat of a coral sandy beach in Gaspar Island, Marinduque Island, Philippines, 13 �� 15 ��� 13 ��� N; 121 �� 52 ��� 03��� E, 24 August 1992. One C 5 male copepodid (DSAUT 125), mounted on one slide, from the interstitial habitat of a coral sandy beach south of Noum��a, New Caledonia, 22 �� 18 ��� 2 ��� N; 166 �� 26 ��� 17 ��� E, 20 October 1982. All material collected by V. Cottarelli. Description of female. Total body length, measured from anterior margin of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami = 405���480 ��m (n = 9; mean = 437 ��m). Largest width measured at posterior margin of cephalothorax: 92 ��m. Body distinctly cylindrical, habitus as in Fig. 1 A. Cephalothorax with parallel margins. Free prosomites as wide as cephalothorax. Urosome slightly tapering posteriorly. Second and third urosomites fused only ventrally to form genital double-somite. Integument of cephalothorax densely pitted in the median and anterolateral areas but with symmetrical pattern of smooth areas; in the anterodistal areas pits less dense and progressively substituted by striae intersecting and creating irregular polygons (Fig. 2 A). Distal margin of cephalothorax with one band of short, straight setules (Fig. 2 A). Cephalothorax with 31 sensilla, and eight sensilla along distal margin, slightly expanded into several lobes. Distodorsal margins of free somites (Fig. 2 B) (except penultimate urosomite) carrying the following number of small sensilla: first and second prosomites: ten sensilla; third prosomite and first urosomite: eight sensilla; genital double-somite and following urosomite: six sensilla. One pair of sensilla flanking each pair of swimming legs, and one pair of sensilla on distoventral margin of genital double-somite (Figs 1 A, 2 C). All somites densely hairy on dorsal (Fig. 2 B) and ventral surface (Fig. 1 A), the latter with less dense hairs; free prosomites and first urosomite hairy also on lateral surface (Fig. 1 A). Dorsal and lateral distal margin of cephalothorax smooth, those of free prosomites and following four urosomites serrate, serration and sensilla present also along the separated portions of genital double-somite. Genital double-somite subdivided dorsally and laterally, ventral suture marked by chitin patches (Fig. 2 C), row of spinules only along the midventral distal margin, between the two medialmost sensilla (Fig. 2 C). Fourth and fifth urosomites with row of spinules along the ventral distal margin (Fig. 1 A). Genital field with one thin seta on each vestigial P 6 and circular copulatory pore forming posterior margin of an elongated receptaculus seminis, and opening posteriorly to transversal ridge (Fig. 2 C). Anal somite with four ventral pores; lateral distal margin from end of operculum to insertion of caudal ramus projecting and serrate (Fig. 2 D). Anal operculum (Figs 2 D, 2 E) distinctly posteriorly produced, semilunar, flanked by two sensilla, and with strongly incised margin forming ten large, tooth-like processes; a characteristic tuft of long hairlike setules increasing in length towards middle present below operculum. Caudal rami (Figs 2 D, 2 E): conical, shorter than anal somite, slightly wider than long (length measured to insertion of seta V, width measured at ramus insertion); ventral and outer sides hairy. Seven hook-like processes: three anterior to seta VII (the largest one flanking seta VII) (1���3, Figs 2 D, 2 E), one small process anterior to seta I (4, Figs 2 D, 2 E), one larger process on distal outer distal corner (5, Figs 2 D, 2 E), two ventral distal processes (6, 7, Figs 1 A, 2 E). Seven setae inserted distally; seta I, II, and III of different lengths: seta III smallest, seta II longest; seta IV plumose; seta V robust, dorsally bent, strongly sclerotised; seta VI short and slender; seta VII as long as seta IV, naked. Rostrum (Fig. 2 F): large and prominent, broadly triangular, not fused to cephalothorax, with pair of sensilla anteriorly, dorsal surface pitted. Antennule (Fig. 2 G): six-segmented; first and second segments wider than following ones; first segment with blunt process on outer margin and longitudinal spinule row along inner margin; second segment with large, posteriorly directed hook along outer margin; fourth segment with distal tubercle carrying very long aesthetasc and two setae of same length; sixth segment with acrothek carrying one short aethetasc and one seta. All setae naked; armature formula: 1 -[1], 2 -[9], 3 -[6], 4 -[2 + ae], 5 -[1], 6 -[8 + acrothek]. Antenna (Fig. 3 A): coxa bare; allobasis with pinnate abexopodal seta inserted in distal third. Exopod one-segmented and small, carrying four subequal bipinnate setae. Endopod with two subapical spinules along outer margin; two bipinnate subapical inner spines; apically from inner to outer: one plain spine, one bipinnate spine, one unipinnate spine, three geniculate spines. Mandible (Fig. 3 B): with well-developed, strongly sclerotised gnathobase carrying four blunt teeth and one bipinnate seta. Palp uniramous, with three long setae and a short one (vestige of endopod?). Maxillule (Fig. 3 C): praecoxal arthrite well developed; with transverse row of long spinules on posterior surface; distal margin with four setae of same length and a shorter one, and four strong, curved and unidenticulate spines. Coxal endite with two naked setae of same length. Basal endite with four naked setae, two of which geniculate. Endopod small, partially fused to basis, with three apical and one subapical naked setae; exopod one-segmented, completely fused to basis, with two apical setae. Maxilla (Fig. 3 D): syncoxa with row of long spinules along outer margin, increasing in length towards the middle of row, transverse rows of short spinules on posterior surface, and row of short spinules along inner margin. Two endites, each with one strong unipinnate spine and two slender and long setae. Allobasis drawn out into strong, slightly curved, armed claw carrying two setae. Endopod very reduced, fused to allobasis, carrying two naked setae of same length. Maxilliped (Fig. 3 E): syncoxa elongate with short outer subdistal naked seta. Basis long and slender, slightly enlarged in middle part, naked. Endopod drawn out into long unipinnate claw, as long as basis, with short accessory seta anteriorly. P 1 -P 4: intercoxal sclerite separated from coxa. P 1 (Fig. 3 F): coxa cylindrical with row of long spinules along inner margin and two setae at about 2 / 3 of same margin. Basis slightly shorter than coxa, with one short distal seta and hair-like setules along inner and outer margins. Exopod one-segmented, hair-like spinules on inner margin, three subequal naked setae along outer margin, one seta on outer distal corner, one normal and one geniculate apical setae of different length. Endopod two-segmented, first segment very long and 3.8 times as long as second segment, bare; second segment apically with armed claw, one minute, naked accessory seta and one smaller spine. P 2 (Fig. 3 G): coxa bare, slightly longer than wide. Basis with outer tubercle carrying seta; exopod fused to basis, represented by lobe carrying one inner sparsely plumose seta and one apical strong spiniform bipinnate spine. Endopod represented by one sparsely plumose seta. P 3 (Fig. 4 A): coxa and basis completely fused, outer basipodal tubercle carrying one seta. Exopod one-segmented, with one sparsely plumose seta on distal inner corner, one sparsely plumose seta and two strong bipinnate spines apically. Endopod fused to coxobasis represented by one tubercle carrying one sparsely plumose seta. P 4 (Fig. 4 B): coxa and basis completely fused, outer basipodal tubercle carrying one seta. Exopod two-segmented, first segment with one strong, long, bipinnate spine on outer distal corner; second segment with two sparsely plumose setae on distal inner corner, one sparsely plumose seta and one strong bipinnate spine apically. Endopod fused to coxobasis represented by tubercle carrying one naked seta. P 5 (Fig. 4 C): baseoendopod separate from exopod, with spinules along inner margin and outer basal seta arising from long peduncle. Endopodal lobe carrying two pinnate setae. Exopod rectangular, longer than wide, with spinules along outer and inner margins, carrying three apical pinnate setae, innermost seta longest. Description of male. Total body length, measured from anterior margin of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami = 402���467 ��m (n = 10; mean = 429 ��m). Largest width measured at posterior margin of cephalothorax: 74 ��m. Habitus (Fig. 1 B) similar to female, but proportionally thinner, with fully separated second and third urosomites. Body surface ornamentation as in female, second urosomite ornamented as first one. Caudal rami similar to those of female in shape and ornamentation, seta I longer (both absolutely and relative to setae II���III), seta II shorter (about as long as seta III), seta V proportionally longer and thinner (Fig. 4 D) than in female (Fig 1 B). Anal operculum (Fig. 4 D), similar to that of female but with 11 tooth-like processes. A 2, mouth parts, P 1, P 3, P 4 (Figs 4 F, 4 G) similar to those of female except small differences in the length of some setae and spines. Spermatophore as in Fig. 5 A. Antennule (Figs 5 D, 5 E): seven-segmented; sub-chirocer. First segment as in female but with additional distal row of spinules; setules along outer margin longer, less numerous and with more restricted distribution than in female. Second segment as in female but with transformed seta (asterisked in figure); fifth segment strongly enlarged with distal tubercle carrying very long aesthetasc and two setae of same length, and seven setae, one of which (ventral) is unipinnate; seventh segment with acrothek carrying one thin and long aethetasc, and one seta. Armature formula: 1 -[1], 2 -[9], 3 -[6], 4 -[2], 5 -[9 + ae], 6 -[0], 7 -[8 + ae]. P 2 (Fig. 4 E): similar to that of female but vestigial exopod carrying one additional inner sparsely plumose seta. P 5 (Fig. 5 B): baseoendopods fused, very reduced naked endopodal lobe: exopod with three subequal pinnate setae. P 6 (Figs 1 B, 5 C): vestigial, asymmetrical, right P 6 with reduced, non-functional plate, left P 6 with large internal plate articulated with the somite, each P 6 with a process carrying two setae of different thickness. Description of third copepodid (C 3). Seven somites, habitus as in fig. 6 A; length, measured from anterior margin of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami, 305 ��m. Distal margin of cephalotorax smooth, distal margin of all somites and of anal operculum denticulate as in the adult. Anal operculum (Fig. 6 B) with some denticles (not present in the adult) transversely aligned dorso-laterally near sensilla. Caudal rami (Fig. 6 B): seta V transformed and fused with the caudal ramus, dorsal process not completely developed. Armature incomplete: two lateral setae (setae I and II) missing. Antennule four-segmented; first segment similar to that of adult, second segment with a small posteriorly directed hook. P 1 (Fig. 6 C): similar to that of adults, all exopodal setae not geniculate. P 2 (Fig. 6 D): protopodite still fused to somite; exopod represented by one lobe fused with the protopodite and carrying three setae, one of which enlarged and spiniform. Endopod represented by one seta. P 3 (fig. 6 E): protopodite still fused to somite; exopod represented by one lobe fused with the protopodite and carrying two normal setae and one laminate seta with finely extruded apex; endopod represented by one tubercle with one seta. P 4 (Fig. 6 F): protopod still fused to somite; exopod represented by one lobe fused with the protopodite and carrying four setae, one enlarged and spiniform; endopod represented by one tubercle with one seta. P 5 (fig. 6 G): two small adjacent tubercles, each with one seta. P 6 (Fig. 6 H): one small bare lobe. Description of fourth copepodid (C 4). Eight somites; habitus and ornamentation of cephalotorax and somites as in C 3. Total body length, measured from anterior margin of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami = 355 ��m. Anal somite (Fig. 6 I): dorsolateral row of denticles more marked. Anal operculum (Fig. 6 I): distal denticles ornamentation almost identical to that of the adult; the characteristic tuft of long hair-like setules increasing in length towards the middle is already present below the operculum. Caudal rami (Fig. 6 I): seta IV and V as in the adult, ramus quadrangular in lateral view (not yet conical as it is in the adult) with a strong dorsal hook-like process anteriorly to seta VII, which is strongly similar to that of the copepodid and adult of Spiniferaphonte (see Fiers 1991 and Gheerardyn et al. 2007). Antennule (Fig. 6 J): four-segmented; first and second segment very similar to those of adult; projection of second segment larger and more pointed than in adult. P 2 (Fig. 6 K): protopodite still fused to somite; exopod represented by one lobe fused with the protopodite and carrying two setae, one enlarged and spiniform. Endopod represented by one tubercle with one small seta. P 3 (fig. 6 L): protopodite still fused to somite; exopod represented by one lobe fused with the protopodite and carrying yhree setae, two enlarged and spiniform. Endopod represented by one tubercle with one small seta. P 4 (Fig. 6 M): exopod one-segmented with five setae (same number as those present in the two-segmented exopod of the adult), three enlarged and spiniform. Endopod represented by one seta. P 5 (fig. 6 N): distinct expodal lobe with three setae. Endopodal lobe not recognizable. P 6 (fig. 6 O): two small lobes, each one with one seta. Decription of female fifth copepodid (C 5). Nine somites, total body length, measured from anterior margin of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami = 450 ��m. Anal somite (Fig. 7 A): with dorso-lateral row of denticles. Anal operculum (Fig. 7 A): distal denticles ornamentation almost identical to those of adult. Caudal rami (Fig. 7 A): almost completely developed: each carrying six normal and one transformed setae, two dorsal hook-like processes anterior to seta VII still inserted on large protrusion (see figure in lateral view for male C 5 as described below). Hooks and protrusion shrunk in the adult to form conical shape of ramus. A 1 as in Fig. 7 C. P 1 (Fig. 7 D): with one seta at midlength of the inner margin of basis, apical seta of exopod geniculate. P 2 -P 4 (Figs 7 E, 7 F, 7 G): as in C 4, but proportionally larger. P 5 (Fig 7 H): exopodal lobe with three setae, endopodal lobe with two small setae. P 6 (Fig. 7 I): two adjacent lobes, each one with one seta. Description of male fifth copepodid (C 5). Nine somites, total body length, measured from anterior margin of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami = 419 ��m. Anal somite (Fig. 7 B), anal operculum (Fig. 7 B), A 1, A 2, mouth parts, P 1 -P 4 and P 6 as in the female C 5. Caudal rami (Fig. 7 B) sexually dimorphic: transformed seta V is longer than in female C 5. P 5 (Fig. 7 J): setae on the exopodal lobe shorter than those of female C 5, baseoendopodal lobe bare. Variability. In adult specimens, the number of tooth-like processes on the anal operculum ranges from 9 to 12 in females, and from 9 to 14 in males. In one male paratype from Siqujior the second segment of exp-P 4 is longer than wide (Fig. 5 F)., Published as part of Bruno, Maria Cristina & Cottarelli, Vezio, 2011, Proposal of Fiersiphontina gen. nov., redescription of Fiersiphontina sensillata comb. nov., and new data on the distribution of Spiniferaphonte (Copepoda, Harpacticoida, Laophontidae), pp. 1-19 in Zootaxa 2809 on pages 3-13, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.277103, {"references":["Wells, J. B. J. & Rao, G. C. (1987) Littoral Harpacticoida (Crustacea: Copepoda) from Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Memoirs of the Zoological Survey of India, 16, 1 - 385.","Wells, J. B. J. (2007) An annotated checklist and keys to the species of Copepoda Harpacticoida (Crustacea). Zootaxa, 1568, 1 - 872.","Mielke, W. (1997) On a small collection of Laophontidae (Copepoda) from Sulawesi, Indonesia. Microfauna Marina, 11, 223 - 250.","Fiers, F. (1991) A revision of the genus Laophontina Norman & T. Scott (Copepoda, Harpacticoida). Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Biologie, 61, 5 - 54.","Gheerardyn, H., Fiers, F., Vincx, M. & De Troch, M. (2007) Spiniferaphonte, a new genus of Laophontidae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida), with notes on the occurrence of processes on the caudal rami. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 27, 309 - 318."]}

Spiniferaphonte cf. ornata Gheerardyn & Fiers, 2007 (Fig. 8) Material examined. One female (DSAUT 126) mounted on one slide, from washout of coral sand and fragments, hand-collected by snorkeling at 5 m depth, in front of beach near Sabang Village where Fiersiphontina sensillata comb. nov. was collected, Eastern Mindoro Province, Philippines, 13 �� 31 ��� 17 ��� N; 120 �� 58 ��� 23 ��� E, 20 March 1998. Material collected by V. Cottarelli. Description of female. Total body length, measured from anterior margin of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami = 711 ��m. Habitus, body ornamentation, rostrum A 1 (Fig. 8 A), A 2, mouth parts, P 1, as in S. ornata. Anal operculum: with 11 tooth-like processes (Fig. 8 B). Caudal rami (Fig. 8 B): armature as in S. ornata but seta V proportionally longer and thinner, one tubepore adjacent to seta VI (arrowed in figure). P 2 (Fig. 8 C): exopod one-segmented narrowing at tip, with three apical plumose setae, two innermost shorter and of same length; one strong bipinnate spine on outer distal corner. P 3 (Fig. 8 D): basis with one pore; exopod three-segmented, first and second segments with one very strong bipinnate spine on outer distal corner; third segment with three apical and one inner pinnate setae of subequal length, inner seta inserted at midlength of segment. P 4 (Fig. 8 E): exopod three-segmented, first segment with very strong bipinnate spine on outer distal corner; second segment with long bipinnate spiniform seta on outer distal corner; third segment with four pinnate setae of different length. P 5 (Fig. 8 F): exopod shorther than in S. ornata, with similar armature but three subequal distal pinnate setae and one longer and pinnate subapical outer seta. Endopodal lobe with four setae as in S. ornata, but less developed. Remarks. Only the characters which distinguish this specimen from the original description are given above. Spiniferaphonte cf. ornata differs in body length (711 ��m vs 564���610 ��m); the morphology and armature of P 2 -P 5 and anal operculum (stronger spines on the P 2 -P 4 exopods, one additional seta on 3 -exp P 3, a much longer P 4 endopod, and an anal operculum with more processes on the distal margin in Spiniferaphonte cf. ornata). The caudal rami and P 5 have additional differences in setal/spinal length (the caudal rami have an additional secretory tube pore, not recorded in Spiniferaphonte ornata). These differences might be large enough to attribute Spiniferaphonte cf. ornata to a new species, but the availability of only one specimen does not allow us to evaluate the possible intraspecific variability, or to describe the male morphology. As a consequence, we postpone a more precise definition of the taxonomic status of this specimen until we are able to collect more material., Published as part of Bruno, Maria Cristina & Cottarelli, Vezio, 2011, Proposal of Fiersiphontina gen. nov., redescription of Fiersiphontina sensillata comb. nov., and new data on the distribution of Spiniferaphonte (Copepoda, Harpacticoida, Laophontidae), pp. 1-19 in Zootaxa 2809 on page 13, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.277103, {"references":["Gheerardyn, H., Fiers, F., Vincx, M. & De Troch, M. (2007) Spiniferaphonte, a new genus of Laophontidae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida), with notes on the occurrence of processes on the caudal rami. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 27, 309 - 318."]}