Physocypria Vávra, 1897

Karanovic, Ivana, 2011, On the recent Cyclocypridinae (Podocopida, Candonidae) with description of two new genera and one new species 2820, Zootaxa 2820 (1), pp. 1-61 : 42-44

Physocypria Vávra, 1897

1897 Physocypria Vávra : p. 7. Type species: Cypria (Physocypria) bullata Vávra, 1897 (by monotypy).

1962 Mecynocypria Rome : p. 26. Type species: Paracypria obtusa Sars, 1910 (by original designation) [syn. nov]

Diagnosis. Carapace usually ovoid in lateral view. LV overlaps RV ventrally, anteriorly and posteriorly. RV sometimes overlapping LV dorsally. Surface of carapace smooth, sometimes covered with long setae. Marginal tubercles present or absent along the margin of RV, rarely LV. Selvage peripheral anteriorly on both valves and sometimes displaced internally on RV. Distal end of ovaries curved downwards and towards anterior part ( Figures 26A , 30C ). A1 7-segmented. A 2 in male 5-segmented, penultimate segment divided and with t2 and t3 setae transformed into sexual bristles. A2 sexually dimorphic: G1 and G3 claws in male reduced, z1 and z2 setae transformed into claws, z1 being shorter, while z3 seta-like and exceeding tips of terminal claws. Swimming seta long, the most external seta completely reduced. Terminal segment of Md from 3 to 5 times longer than wide. Terminal segment of Mxl palp square. Prehensile palps asymmetrical. T2 with basal seta. Basal segment of T3 with d2 seta. Setae “e”, “f” long, “g” very short. Setae “h1” and “h2” subequal or “h2” being slightly longer. UR with all setae and claws present and normally developed. Hemipenis with two lobes “a” and “b” well developed. Zenker organ with 7 whorls of spines. Genital field rounded.

Type species. Physocypria bullata Vávra, 1897 .

Other species. P. armata ( Müller, 1898) comb. nov; P. capensis ( Sars, 1895) ; P. castanea ( Brady, 1904) ; P. complanata ( Sars, 1910) comb. nov.; P. denticulata ( Daday, 1910) ; P. declivis ( Sars, 1910) comb. nov.; P. deflexa ( Sars, 1910) comb. nov.; P. emaciata ( Rome, 1962) comb. nov.; P granulata Rome, 1965 ; P. lata ( Rome, 1962) comb. nov.; P. lenticularis ( Müller, 1898) comb. nov.; P. limnalis ( Rome, 1965) comb. nov.; P. obtusa ( Sars, 1910) comb. nov.; P. opaca ( Sars, 1910) comb. nov.; P. ovata ( Rome, 1962) comb. nov.; P. parvula ( Rome, 1962) comb. nov.; P. perlonga ( Rome, 1962) ; P. stricta ( Rome, 1962) ; P. subangulata ( Sars, 1910) comb. nov.; P. tumidosa ( Rome, 1962) comb. nov.

Remarks and affinities. The original description of Physocypria bullata Vávra, 1897 , the type species of the genus Physocypria Vávra, 1897 , was quite short and it did not include some very important characters, such as the imprints of the ovaries on the carapace and the chaetotaxy of the T2. The only character used during the last 100 years to distinguish species belonging to Physocypria from those belonging to Cypria Zenker, 1854 was the presence of the marginal tubercles on the RV. It is then no wonder that Rome (1962) described a new genus from Lake Tanganyika, Mecynocypria Rome, 1962 to include species with reverse position of ovaries. Rome (1962) has chosen Paracypria obtusa Sars, 1910 for the type species. I have checked the material of this species deposited in the RBINS ( Figure 28 ). This species has a more elongated carapace than it is typical for the other species of the genus. Unfortunately, the imprint of ovaries is not visible any more on the carapace, while this was clearly drawn by Rome (1962). The rest of the soft part morphology, most of all the appearance of the T2 and UR are typical of the genus Physocypria . After rechecking the type material of P. bullata it became clear that in this species the distal end of ovaries is curved downwards and, in addition, it has the basal seta on the T2. The last character it also shares with Mecynocypria , and in fact there are no distinguishing characters for the genera Mecynocypria and Physocypria . Further on, most of the species, previously assigned to Physocypria have been proven to require a new genus, since they do not have a typical position of ovaries, and they lack basal seta on the T2. The only character they share with the actual Physocypria (but not even with all species) is the presence of marginal tubercles on the RV. Most of the species are included in the genus based on the original illustrations, while some, like Cypria castanea Brady, 1904 ( Figure 9E, F ) and C. capensis Sars, 1895 ( Figure 30C ), have been reexamined for the purpose of this study. Only two species, Mecynocypria granulata Rome, 1965 and M. conoidea ( Sars, 1910) , were not included in the key, because they do not have enough distinguishing characters to be separated from the other representatives of the genus.

Rome (1962) described the following group of species from Lake Tanganyika, with a very peculiar appearance of the marginal pore canals, which are quite wide, sometimes even branching: P. deflexa ( Rome, 1962) , P. opaca ( Rome, 1962) , P. ovata ( Rome, 1962) , P. tumidosa ( Rome, 1962) , and P. parvula ( Rome, 1962) . This group of species might in the future prove to belong to a separate genus, but this genus could not be named Mecynocypria , since its type species clearly belongs to Physocypria .

Physocypria belongs into the group of Cyclocypridinae genera with a short terminal segment on the T3 (this excludes Kempfcyclocypris gen. nov. and Cyclocypris Brady & Norman, 1889 ). It differs from all genera by a specific position of ovaries. Like Allocypria Rome, 1962 , Kempfcyclocypris , and Cyclocypris , Physocypria has the basal seta on the T2, which makes the species of the genus easily distinguishable from Cypria and Keysercypria gen. nov.

Distribution. The genus is distributed only in South East Africa (including the ancient lakes) and Madagascar ( Figure 24 ).

Figures

FIGURE 9. Digital photograph of original slides. A-C—C. koenikei Daday, 1910 (HNHM IV/P 106, 107); D—[not] Cypria lenticularis G.W. Müller, 1898 (HNHM IV/P 108); E, F—Physocypria castanea (Brady, 1904), ♀ (HNHM IV/P 104): A—Carapace, exterior view from the right side, RV partly broken; B—paired hemipenis; C, D - Zenker organ, showing the presence of numerous chitinous whorls of spines; E—T2, showing the presence of the “d1” seta; F—UR, proximal part not visible.

FIGURE 24. Distribution of Physocypria Vávra, 1897. 1—P. armata (G.W. Müller, 1898); 2—P. bullata Vávra, 1897; 3—P. capensis (Sars, 1895); 4—P. complanata (Sars, 1910); 5—P. dadayi (Daday, 1910); 6—P. declivis (Sars, 1910); 7—P. deflexa (Sars, 1910); 8—P. emaciata (Rome, 1962); 9—P. lata (Rome, 1962); 10—P. lenticularis (G.W. Müller, 1898); 11—P. limnalis (Rome, 1965); 12—P. obtusa (Sars, 1910); 13—P. opaca (Sars, 1910); 14—P. ovata (Rome, 1962); 15—P. parvula (Rome, 1962); 16—P. stricta (Rome, 1962); 17—P. subangulata (Sars, 1910); 18—P.tumidosa (Rome, 1962).

FIGURE 26. Physocypria bullata Vávra, 1897. A, D—Type, ♀ (MNB 10011); B, C ♂ (ZMH 1242b): A—carapace, exterior view from left side; B—LV, interior view; C—carapace, exterior view from the right side; D—last two segments of A2. Scales = 0.1 mm.

FIGURE 28. Physocypria bullata Vávra, 1897. A—lectotype, ♀ (MNB 10011); B, C—♂ (ZMH 1242b): A—T1, B—T2; C— hemipenis; D—T1. Scales = 0.1 mm.

FIGURE 30. Physocypria bullata Vávra, 1897. A, B—lectotype, ♀ (MNB 10011); A—Mxl; B—Md palp. Physocypria capensis Sars, 1895. C –♀ (ZMH 541), LV, interior view. Scales = 0.1 mm.