Paralaophonte kolarovi (Apostolov, 2008) Huys & Lee, 2009

Huys, Rony & Lee, Wonchoel, 2009, Proposal of Marbefia, gen. n. and Inermiphonte, gen. n., including updated keys to the species of Pseudonychocamptus Lang, 1944 and Paralaophonte Lang, 1948 (Copepoda, Harpacticoida, Laophontidae), ZooKeys 23 (23), pp. 1-38 : 17-18

Key to the species of Pseudonychocamptus Lang, 1944

Lang (1944, 1948) proposed the genus Pseudolaophonte for four species previously allocated to the genus Laophonte Philippi, 1840 : Laophonte koreni Boeck, 1873 (type by original designation), L. gracilis T. Scott, 1903 , L. proxima Sars, 1908a and L. abbreviata Sars, 1920a . Noodt (1952) removed L. gracilis and designated it as the type (by original designation) of a new genus Pilifera Noodt, 1952 which has remained monotypic since its proposal. New species were added to Pseudonychocamptus by Lang (1965: P. paraproximus and P. spinifer ), Hamond (1968: P. carthyi ), Apostolov and Petkovski (1980: P. marinovi ), Ceccherelli (1988: P. colomboi ) and Apostolov (2008: P. kolarovi ).

Both Sars (1908a) and Wilson (1932) described Laophonte proxima on the basis of females only (the latter author from a freshwater locality!) whereas Klie (1929) provided the first illustrations of the male, including the P5 which he figured with one seta on the endopodal lobe. Lang (1965) distinguished the closely related Pseudonychocamptus proximus and P. paraproximus on the basis of morphometric differences in the distal segment of the P4 exopod and P5 baseoendopod in the female and the P5 exopod in the male. An additional differentiating character used in his key referred to the number of setae on the male P5 baseoendopod. Hamond (1968) and Ceccherelli (1988) followed Lang’s judgement, however Mielke (1975), in his redescription of the male of P. proximus , pointed out that the latter has two setae on the P5 baseoendopod (as in all other congeners), rendering the distinctiveness of P. paraproximus doubtful. Although we have followed Bodin (1997) and Wells (2007) in considering the latter a species of uncertain status (here ranked as species inquirenda), we have nevertheless included it in the key below, based on the interspecific differences displayed in the length/width ratio of the male P5 exopod ( Table 2). Recently, Apostolov (2008) added a new species, P. kolarovi , based on two males collected from the Kavala beach ( Greece) in the Aegean Sea. The author claimed that the species occupied an isolated position in the genus on account of the structure of the caudal rami and P1–P5. The 2-segmented P4 endopod (with one inner and two distal setae), the presence of 5 setae on the P5 exopod and the sexually dimorphic distal inner spine on the P2 endopod clearly exclude P. kolarovi from the genus Pseudonychocamptus and particularly the latter character unequivocally points to a relationship with the genera Paralaophonte Lang, 1944 and Loureirophonte Jakobi, 1953 . The species is here formally placed in the genus Paralaophonte as Paralaophonte kolarovi , comb. n. (see below). The six valid species currently recognized in the genus, and the problematic species P. paraproximus , can be differentiated by the key below and the character states tabulated in Table 2.

1. P3 enp-2 with 4 setae in ♀ and 2 setae in ♁ ............................................... 2

– P3 enp-2 with 5 setae in ♀ and 3–4 setae in ♁ ........................................... 3

2. P5 exopod ♀ at least twice longer than wide, with 5 setae; P5 exopod ♁ with straight outer margin .................................................................... P. koreni a

– P5 exopod ♀ about 1.3 times longer than wide, with 6 setae; P5 exopod ♁ with convex outer margin ............................................................. P. spinifer

3. Caudal ramus longer than wide .................................................................. 4

– Caudal ramus wider than long ................................................... P. marinovi

4. P5 exopod ♀ with 1 naked and 5 pinnate setae; P2 enp-2, P3 enp-2 and P5 exopod of ♁ with 4 setae ............................................................................ 5

– P5 exopod ♀ with 6 naked setae; P2 enp-2, P3 enp-2 and P5 exopod of ♁ with 3 setae................................................................................. P. colomboi

5. Body elongate, length 3–4 times maximum width of cephalothorax; all setae of P5 exopod ♀ marginal............................................................................ 6

– Body short, length about 1.85 times maximum width of cephalothorax; P5 exopod ♀ with 4 marginal and 2 surface setae ....................... P. abbreviatus

6. P5 exopod ♁ about 2.7 times longer than wide ......................... P. proximus

– P5 exopod ♁ about 3.25 times longer than wide ................ P. paraproximus