Candona detecta (O.F. Müller, 1776) Baird, 1845 .

The original description of this species is very poor and lacks illustrations. In his redescription of the species, the same author (O.F. Müller 1785) mentions and illustrates a uropodal ramus with a posterior seta.

Daday (1900) considered C. detecta to be identical to Candonopsis kingsleii (Brady & Robertson, 1870) . However, the presence of a posterior uropodal seta precludes this species belonging to the genus Candonopsis Vávra, 1891 (fide Karanovic & Marmonier 2002).

G.W. Müller (1912) considered Candona detecta to be identical to Candona protzi Hartwig, 1898, now Fabaeformiscandona protzi (Hartwig, 1898) . Sars (1925) pointed out that C. detecta may be a juvenile of Candona caudata Kaufmann, 1900, now Fabaeformiscandona caudata (Kaufmann, 1900) . The inclusion of C. detecta in the genus Fabaeformiscandona Krstić, 1972 appears sound to us and we therefore propose the formal transfer of the species into that genus: Fabaeformiscandona detecta (O.F. Müller, 1776) comb. nov. Being an uncertain species, because it is presently unrecognizable, F. detecta is listed as such.