Paraleptastacus spinicaudatus Nicholls, 1945 Chappuis (1954: 269) Arenopontia spinicaudata ( Nicholls, 1945 ) Chappuis (1955: 56) Arenopontia ( Neoleptastacus ) spinicaudata ( Nicholls, 1945 ) Wells (1967: 324) Neoleptastacus longipes Nicholls, 1945 Karanovic (2008: 5 Review of Neoleptastacus Nicholls, 1945 (Harpacticoida, Arenopontiidae), including an updated key to species and proposal of Phreatipontia gen. nov. Sak, Serdar Karaytuğ, Süphan Huys, Rony Zootaxa 2024 2024-10-21 5525 1 1 66 46KMW Nicholls, 1945 Nicholls 1945 [151,691,689,716] Copepoda Arenopontiidae Neoleptastacus Animalia Harpacticoida 10 11 Arthropoda species spinicaudatus     Paraleptastacus spinicaudatus Nicholls, 1945: lapsus calamiby  Chappuis (1954: 269)     Arenopontia spinicaudata( Nicholls, 1945) Chappuis (1955: 56)    Arenopontia( Neoleptastacus) spinicaudata( Nicholls, 1945):  Wells (1967: 324)    Neoleptastacus longipes Nicholls, 1945: lapsus calamiby  Karanovic (2008: 5, 331)  Original description. Nicholls (1945): 22–23; Text fig. 3.   Additional description. Sak et al.(2008): 435–441; Figs 13–17.   Type locality. Australia, Western Australia. Nicholls (1945)did not specify a type locality but collected the species from two sandy beaches some 500 kmapart. The first, Leighton Beach (in the vicinity of Perth), was sampled in October 1939while samples from the second site, locally known as ‘Back Beach’ at Dongarra, were collected in March 1940. All syntypesdeposited at the Natural History Museum in London originated from Back Beach which was designated as the type locality by Sak et al.(2008).   Body length.280–300 μm (both sexes) [ Nicholls 1945].   Remarks. Sak et al.(2008)re-examined the typematerial and redescribed both sexes in detail. Nicholls’s (1945) original description is adequate by contemporary standards except for the reported absence of the inner seta on P4 exp-3, an error that was perpetuated in some morphological comparisons ( Noodt 1955b; Bodiou & Colomines 1996) and identification keys ( Lang 1965; Karanovic 2000; Wells 2007). Within the  spinicaudatus- group,  N. spinicaudatusis morphologically closest to  N. spicatus, both of which exhibit a dorsolateral spur near the base of caudal ramus seta VII. The typespecies can be differentiated from  N. spicatusby the shape of the abdominal hyaline frills (lappets denticulate vssemi-incised obtusidigitate), the proportional size of the inner distal seta on P2–P3 enp-2 (shorter vslonger than endopod) and the morphometric dimensions of the P5 (2.5 times as long as wide vs3.0 times). The apical spinous process on the P5 of both sexes is minutely bipinnate in  N. spinicaudatus(and still delimited at its base on the posterior surface in the ♀) while it is lacking such ornamentation in  N. spicatus(and completely fused to the segment in the ♀). The linear egg-sac typically contains 2–4 large eggs; occasionally six eggsare found in which case they overlap ( Nicholls 1945). The species is so far known only from two sandy beaches in Western Australia ( Nicholls 1945). Chappuis (1954: 269)claimed to have found one femaleand one malein Annaba(= Bône) in northeastern Algeriawhich closely resemble  N. spinicaudatusbut did not present any illustrations to substantiate his record. In a later report, Chappuis (1958: 414, Figs 2–5) provided illustrations of the female antennule, P2 endopod, P5 and caudal ramus of specimens he collected in Puget Sound, Washington State. Despite differences in the P5, length of P3–P4 endopods and caudal rami, Chappuis (1958)assigned his material to  N. spinicaudatus, stating that such morphological minutiae do not warrant the proposal of a distinct subspecies. As pointed out by Sak et al.(2008), the morphology of the fifth legs suggests that Chappuis (1958)was almost certainly dealing with  Mesopontia dillonbeachia( Lang, 1965). Karanovic (2008)erroneously cited the species as  Neoleptastacus longipes Nicholls, 1945.