Neogyptis, Pleijel & Rouse & Sundkvist & Nygren, 2012
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00819.x |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:1DA553AB-8BB9-4883-8C14-B56D99EB2070 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5479902 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/478D924F-4239-4B25-AC37-35BC427C5FEF |
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:478D924F-4239-4B25-AC37-35BC427C5FEF |
treatment provided by |
Marcus |
scientific name |
Neogyptis |
status |
gen. nov. |
NEOGYPTIS View in CoL GEN. NOV.
Type species: Ophiodromus roseus Malm, 1874: 82 .
Etymology: ‘neo’ is Latin for new, ‘Gyptis’ is the genus to which several of the Neogyptis members were previously allocated. Gender feminine.
Description: Terminal ring of proboscis papillae present, lip pads usually absent (present in Neogyptis hongkongensis sp. nov.), neurochaetae usually from segment 5 (from segment 4 in Neogyptis hinehina sp. nov.), notochaetae usually from segment 6 (from segment 5 in Neogyptis crypta sp. nov.), transverse dorsal ridges absent or present.
Remarks: Neogyptis includes Neogyptis carriebowcayi sp. nov., N. crypta Pleijel, 1993b , comb. nov., Neogyptis fauchaldi sp. nov., N. hinehina sp. nov., N. hongkongensis sp. nov., N. mediterranea Pleijel, 1993a , comb. nov., N. plurisetis Hilbig, 1992 , comb. nov., N. rosea ( Malm, 1874) comb. nov., Neogyptis vostokensis sp. nov., and Neogyptis sp. A . A summary of characters separating the species is provided in Table 2.
There are no currently known morphological apomorphies for Neogyptis at the exclusion of Amphiduros . However, the molecular data provide strong support for a sister group relationship between the two taxa.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.