Nealecypris clavigera, Nagler & Geist & Matzke-Karasz, 2014

Nagler, Christina, Geist, Juergen & Matzke-Karasz, Renate, 2014, Revision of the genus Tanycypris (Ostracoda, Cypricercinae) with the description of Tanycypris alfonsi n. sp., and an identification key to the genus, Zootaxa 3821 (4), pp. 401-424 : 419-420

Nealecypris clavigera nov. comb. ( Müller, 1898)

( Fig. 12B,C,G,H )

v * 1898 Cypris clavigera —G.W. Müller: 269–271, pl. 16, figs 14–21.

1912 Dolerocypris clavigera —G.W. Müller: 191–192.

1965 Tanycypris clavigera —Rome: 17–21, fig. 3 A–S.

v; non 1969 Dolerocypris pellucida — Petkovski in Rome: 192.

1971 Tanycypris clavigera – McKenzie: 172, 208.

Diagnosis. L = 0.75–0.8 mm, H = 0.18–0.25 mm; ratio width to length = 2.9:10; greatest height at the anterior first fourth. Carapace in dorsal view narrow, strongly gaping posteriorly. Surface of the valves with fine, flat stripes. Dorsal margin almost straight; ventral margin slightly sinous. Inner lamella very broad at the anterior end. A1 with Wouters organ and Rome organ ( Fig. 12B ). T1 with 2 a-setae and 1 seta in the distal median area, of which it cannot be stated whether it is a b-seta or d-seta ( Fig. 12C ). T2 with a very long d1 and an inconspicuous d2. CR very long and straight ( Fig. 12H ). CR attachment short and stout, without vb and with db, forming a right angle ( Fig. 12G ). Zenker organ with 15 rosettes of chitinous spines. All shields of the hemipenis bluntly rounded ( Müller 1898; Rome 1965).

History. Müller (1898) described Cypris clavigera , which he found in Madagascar, and deposited the type material in ZMG. Later, he transferred it to Dolerocypris ( Müller 1912) . Rome (1965) assigned it to Tanycypris , because of the characteristic CR attachment. Petkovski, in the discussion following Rome's talk during the 2nd International Symposium on Ostracoda (discussion published in Rome 1969) argued that Dolerocypris pellucida is most likely a Tanycypris and probably even a synonym of Tanycypris clavigera . McKenzie (1971), while describing South African freshwater ostracods, followed Rome (1965) in assigning D. clavigera to Tanycypris . In contrast, Broodbakker (1984) cast doubt on Rome’s description and called for a re-examination of Dolerocypris clavigera .

While the holotype could not be found in the ZMG collection, three slides with dissected paratypes (No. 32 e) were examined .

Conclusion. The generic state of Dolerocypris clavigera is still controversial; however, it is obvious that this species does not belong to the genus Tanycypris , because of its lack of vb on the CR attachment (present in Tanycypris ), its lack of a groove in the inner lamella of LV (present in Tanycypris ) and the lack of a second seta in the median distal area of T1 (in Tanycypris one b- and one d-seta are present). An assignment to Astenocypris can also be excluded due to the lack of vb and the well-developed db ( Astenocypris has a short vb and a short, pointed db).

If the seta in the distal median area of T1 is interpreted as a d-seta, the species clavigera cannot be assigned to any genus of the subfamily. In contrast, if this seta is interpreted as a b-seta, the key characters of this species lead to an assignment to the genus Nealecypris . Therefore, we suggest the new combination Nealecypris clavigera .

Nealecypris clavigera nov. comb. differs from N. obtusa in the dorsal margin (straight in N. clavigera , slightly arched in N. obtusa ), in the length (L <1 mm in N. clavigera , L> 1 mm in N. obtusa ), in the number of setae on the masticatory process of T1 (12 in N. clavigera , 14 in N. obtusa ), in the shape of db (longer and slimmer in N. obtusa ) and in the size of the Wouters and Rome organs (large in N. clavigera , inconspicuous in N. obtusa ).

Figures

FIGURE 12. Diaphanocypris pedroensis and Nealecypris clavigera. A, A1 D. pedroensis; B, A1 N. clavigera; C, T1 (female) N. clavigera; D, T1 (female) D. pedroensis; E, CR D. pedroensis; F, CR attachment D. pedroensis; G, CR attachment N. clavigera; H, CR N. clavigera. Scale bar = 100 µm for A–H.