identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
A9519D35FFE8FFA213E5FC145326FF48.text	A9519D35FFE8FFA213E5FC145326FF48.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hatschekia Poche 1902	<div><p>Genus Hatschekia Poche, 1902</p><p>Diagnosis: Female body comprising cephalothorax, trunk and genitoabdomen bearing caudal rami. Cephalothorax typically with well defined dorsal shield supported by subsurface chitinous frame, usually consisting of median longitudinal bar and paired lateral bars of varying lengths. Cephalothorax incorporating first pedigerous somite but ventrally located first legs typically positioned at junction with trunk, posterior to rear margin of dorsal cephalothoracic shield. Frontal margin of cephalothorax with median rostrum with or without paired rostral processes ventrally; frontal region crenulate in some species. Trunk comprising second to fifth pedigerous somites: shape and relative size of trunk variable, typically subcylindrical or slightly dorsoventrally flattened with linear to weakly convex lateral margins. Trunk rarely with paired dorsal processes anteriorly, but commonly with paired processes or lobes posterolaterally. Anterior part of trunk often narrow, forming “neck” region, or with second pedigerous somite defined by constrictions. Genitoabdomen comprising genital complex and abdomen; capable of being partly telescoped within trunk. Genital apertures located dorsolaterally on anterior part of genitoabdomen and paired copulatory pores located ventrally. Caudal rami with 5 or 6 setae.</p><p>Antennule typically indistinctly 5-segmented with setation pattern 10, 5, 4, 1, 13 + ae, or reduced. Additional segmental fusions resulting in 3- or 4-segmented antennule in some species. Some setal elements on basal segment modified as robust spines in some species. Antenna 3-segmented: first segment unarmed; second segment typically with pitted surface ornamentation; third segment forming terminal claw with or without seta proximally. Mandible stylet-like, lying within oral cone, armed with up to 7 teeth. Maxillule bilobate, typically with 2 setal elements per lobe. Maxilla 4-segmented: comprising unarmed basal segment, long second segment bearing setal element proximally on medial margin; third segment short with distal seta; fourth segment small, terminating in bifid claw and usually armed with fine seta. Maxilliped absent. Legs 1 and 2 biramous with 1- or 2-segmented rami: members of leg pair connected by interpodal bars on ventral surface of somite. Interpodal bars ornamented with paired processes in some species. Setal formula of legs 1 and 2 typically:</p><p>Protopod Exopod Endopod</p><p>Leg 1 1 – 1 1 – 0; 3 to 6 0 – 0/1; 2 to 5</p><p>Leg 2 1 – 0 1 – 0; 3 to 5 0 – 1; 2 to 5</p><p>Interspecific variation restricted to proximal endopodal segment and distal segments of both rami. Legs 3 and 4 reduced, located on lateral margins of trunk. Leg 3 typically a small lobe bearing 1 to 3 setae. Leg 4 typically represented by single seta. Leg 5 absent.</p><p>Male body comprising cephalothorax and post-cephalothoracic trunk. Cephalothorax incorporating first pedigerous somite and bearing dorsal shield as in female. Trunk comprising second to fifth pedigerous somites plus genital somite, and abdomen, all fused. Trunk bearing paired genital apertures posteriorly on ventral surface; genital apertures closed off by opercular plates formed by sixth legs. Posteriormost part of trunk derived from abdomen and bearing paired caudal rami posteriorly. Caudal rami typically more elongate than in respective female.</p><p>Antennule as in female, showing sexual dimorphism in some species. Antenna 3-segmented: first segment short, unarmed; second segment typically bearing strong process extending distally; third segment armed with 1 or 2 setae and bearing terminal claw (bearing accessory process). Mandible, maxillule and maxilla as female. Maxilliped absent. Legs 1 and 2 biramous with 1- or 2-segmented rami as in female. Legs 3 and 4 reduced, as in female except leg 3 represented by 1 to 5 setae. Leg 5 absent.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>The updated diagnosis presented here incorporates new data on the tagmosis obtained using CLSM. The root cause of the uncertainty surrounding the correct terminology for the posteriormost region of the female body has been the lack of any trace of leg 5 because the position of this leg is the usual marker for the fate of the fifth pedigerous somite. The ventral longitudinal trunk muscles (VLM) of H. pholas are visible in Fig. 1 and the pattern of intermediate attachments to the body wall, as visualized by the interruptions in the striated trunk muscle bundles, clearly shows that the fifth pedigerous somite is incorporated into the trunk. In ventral view (Fig. 1A) each of the paired VLM forms broad attachments to the body wall that mark the planes of the original pedigerous somite 2/pedigerous somite 3 articulation (Fig. 1A, ped2/3), and the original pedigerous somite 3/pedigerous somite 4 articulation (Fig. 1A, ped3/4). Within the fourth pedigerous somite the VLM bundle tapers posteriorly towards a narrow attachment marking the plane of the original pedigerous somite 4/pedigerous somite 5 articulation (ped4/5). Only a single bundle of muscle fibres continues posteriorly through the fifth pedigerous somite and this inserts on the anterior rim of the posteriormost region of the body. The posteriormost region of the female body is, therefore, a genitoabdomen, comprising the genital somite and abdomen. Contraction of this last muscle pair would help to “telescope” the anterior part of the genitoabdomen inside the rear end of the trunk.</p><p>In adult males the paired genital apertures are carried at the rear end of the trunk, indicating that the genital somite is incorporated into the trunk. The posteriormost part of the male body carries the caudal rami and represents the free abdomen.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A9519D35FFE8FFA213E5FC145326FF48	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Boxshall, Geoffrey A.;Bernot, James P.	Boxshall, Geoffrey A., Bernot, James P. (2025): The Hatschekiidae (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, with a key to species reported from Australian waters. Zootaxa 5716 (1): 11-65, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2
A9519D35FFECFFA913E5FB0856E7FBE8.text	A9519D35FFECFFA913E5FB0856E7FBE8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hatschekia amyemmarum Boxshall & Bernot 2025	<div><p>Hatschekia amyemmarum new species</p><p>Type Material</p><p>Holotype ♀, plus 6 paratype ♀♀ from gills of Arothron hispidus (Linnaeus, 1758) (TC17119) caught off Peel Island, Moreton Bay on 14 January 2016, QM Reg. Nos. W55129 (Holotype), W55130 (paratypes); 5 paratype ♀♀ from gills of A. hispidus (TC17325) caught off Mud Island, Moreton Bay on 20 January 2016, NHMUK Reg. Nos. 2024.333-337.</p><p>Other material examined: 1♀ from gills of A. nigropunctatus (Bloch &amp; Schneider, 1801) (TC17278) caught off Amity, North Stradbroke Is., Moreton Bay on 19 January 2016, NHMUK Reg. No. 2024.338 .</p><p>Differential diagnosis</p><p>Female with broad cephalothorax about 1.7 times wider than long and about 1.6 times wider than trunk. Dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by m-shaped subsurface chitinous frame. Trunk about 2.3 times longer than wide; lacking posterior processes. Genitoabdomen longer than wide with more-or-less parallel sides. Rostrum with short lateral processes. Parabasal papilla comprising 2 rounded lobes located lateral to antenna. Mandible stylet-like with 4 distal teeth. Legs 1 and 2 each joined by simple interpodal bar; endopods indistinctly 2-segmented and each armed with 2 apical setae, lacking inner seta on proximal segment. Leg 3 represented by 2 setae on small papilla.</p><p>Description of female</p><p>Total body length excluding caudal rami ranging from 1.07 to 1.29 mm, with a mean of 1.18 mm (n = 10). Body (Fig. 3A) comprising broad anterior cephalothorax and cylindrical trunk with small rectangular genitoabdomen posteriorly. Cephalothorax about 1.7 times wider than long (range 1.5 to 1.9 times) and 1.6 times wider than trunk: dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by m-shaped subsurface chitinous frame with long median longitudinal bar and pair of shorter lateral bars, with short tapering bar just medial to lateral bars. Surface of dorsal cephalothoracic shield densely sculptured with rounded pits. Cephalothorax length comprising about 39% of trunk length (range 33 to 45%). Trunk about 2.3 times longer than wide (range 1.5 to 2.9; with maximum width about in middle; posterior margin transverse with rounded posterolateral corners. Surface of trunk ornamented with rounded flattened knobs from level of second legs posteriorly to rear margin of trunk (Fig. 3B). Genitoabdomen longer than wide (Fig. 3B) comprising fused genital and abdominal somites; bearing paired genital apertures dorsally and paired copulatory pores ventrally. Caudal rami about 1.4 times longer than wide (30 x 21 μm); armed with 6 naked setae of different lengths; proximal lateral seta located about at middle of lateral margin. Mean number of eggs per egg sac = 15 (range 13 to 18, n = 8).</p><p>Rostrum (Fig. 3C) broad, bearing short rostral processes laterally. Antennule (Fig. 3D) indistinctly 5-segmented but with compound second segment showing bands of thickened cuticle: segmental setation pattern 10, 5, 4, 1, 11 + ae; 2 unequal setae located on antero-dorsal surface of first segment. Antenna (Fig. 3E) 3-segmented, comprising short unarmed coxa, robust tapering basis, and distal subchela: surface of basis ornamented with minute pits; subchela large with swollen and thickened base plus long curved distal claw. Parabasal papilla (Fig. 3F) comprising 2 rounded lobes located lateral to insertion of antenna. Mandible (Fig. 3G) stylet-like, bearing 4 minute marginal teeth subapically. Maxillule bilobed (Fig. 3H): both inner and outer lobes bearing 2 setae, with outer seta on outer lobe longer than others. Maxilla (Fig. 3I) armed with single inner seta proximally on first segment; subchela comprising long segment armed with slender seta at inner extremity and distal claw with minute seta at mid-length and bifid tip.</p><p>Swimming legs 1 and 2 biramous; members of each leg pair joined by slender interpodal bars (Fig. 3J); U-shaped cuticular thickening with lateral extensions present between interpodal bars. Leg 1 (Fig. 3J) with fused sympod armed with outer and inner setae: exopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment with short outer distal spine; distal segment bearing short outer and long inner setae on apex and 4 shorter setae distributed along inner margin: endopod indistinctly segmented; unarmed proximally; distally bearing 2 unequal setae on apex. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 1 on sympod, 2 on exopodal segment 1 and 1 each on both endopodal segments. Leg 2 (Fig. 3K) with fused sympod bearing outer seta; exopod 2-segmented; proximal segment armed with curved outer spine; distal segment bearing 2 unequal apical setae plus 3 short setae on inner margin: endopod 2-segmented; proximal segment unarmed; distal segment armed with 1 long and 1 short seta on apex. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 2 each on sympod and proximal exopodal segment, and 1 row on each endopodal segment. Leg 3 located dorsolaterally on trunk at 43% of length (Fig. 3A), represented by 2 medially-directed setae arising directly from small knob-like vestige on trunk surface. Leg 4 located dorsally on trunk at 72% of length (Fig. 3A), represented by single seta originating directly on trunk surface.</p><p>Etymology: This species is named after Amy Boxshall-Collar and Emma Kiernan (nee Ridley) who compiled a database of records of parasitic copepods, including many hatschekiids, from Indo-Pacific fishes during work placement at the NHM, London.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>This species can be characterized by its short, broad cephalothorax combined with the relatively short, narrow trunk. Interpreting the posterior region is more problematic: the figured specimen (Fig. 3A) shows the genitoabdomen partly telescoped up inside the trunk but in a second specimen the genitoabdomen (Fig. 3B) was fully extended so the dorsal oviduct openings and the paired ventral copulatory pores were readily visible. Any attempt to use the length: width proportions of the genitoabdomen is problematic as a taxonomic character given the variable degree of telescoping of fixed specimens. This simply reinforces the need for caution in making habitus comparisons between female hatschekiids.</p><p>The new species lacks any kind of posterior processes or lobes on the trunk of the female which distinguished it from the 50 species listed in Table 2. Similarly, in possessing unornamented interpodal bars it can be distinguished from the 26 species which possess posteriorly-directed spinous processes on the interpodal bars of legs 1 and 2 (Table 3). [Six species have both posterolateral lobes on the trunk plus spinous processes on the interpodal bars of legs 1 and 2 and are therefore listed in both Tables 2 and 3.] Eliminating these 70 species from the total of 150 listed in the World of Copepods (Walter &amp; Boxshall, 2025) leaves another 80 Hatschekia species which share rounded posterolateral corners on the trunk and smooth interpodal bars. The new species has a large cephalothorax combined with a short trunk, i.e., the length of the cephalothorax is just over a third (39%) of the length of the trunk. Given that the proportions of the trunk are known to vary markedly with the state of contraction/preservation of Hatschekia specimens, it is necessary to allow for this potential artefactual variation when making comparisons. Here we focus on making detailed comparisons with the 22 species which share the possession of a large cephalothorax combined with a short trunk, i.e., a cephalothorax that is between 25% and 50% of the length of the trunk (Table 4). Effectively this applies a filter which excludes another 44 species in which the cephalothorax is less than 25% of the length of the trunk and four other species in which the cephalothorax is more than 50% of the length of the trunk.</p><p>......continued on the next page</p><p>* H. monacanthi Yamaguti, 1939 was illustrated by Jones (1985) as having 2 pairs of projections on posterolateral margins of the trunk but he noted that these were probably due to contraction of the mounted specimens. In their recent redescription, Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa (2009b) found no processes present, so this species is not included in this table.</p><p>The new species plus nine other species listed in Table 4 are characterized by the reduction in the setation of the endopod of leg 2, so that the distal endopodal segment carries only 2 setae (cf. 4 or 5) and endopodal segment 1 lacks the inner seta (cf. present). The presence-absence of this latter seta was regarded as an important and reliable morphological character in Hatschekia by Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa (2013). In addition to the new species, these species are: H. affluens Castro Romero &amp; Baeza-Kurocki, 1986, H. cadenati Nuñes-Ruivo, 1954, H. fuscoguttatus Lee, Lee &amp; Boxshall, 2013, H. hanguyenvani Kazachenko, Kovalev, Nguyen &amp; Ngo, 2017, H. laeopsi Izawa, 2018, H. nohu Villalba, 1986, H. papillifera Kabata, 1991, H. sphyraeni Pillai, 1964, and H. synagris Yamaguti, 1954 .</p><p>The cephalothorax of H. affluens is wider in its posterior half than anteriorly and the subsurface chitinous frame comprises a long median bar plus long lateral bars which curve inwards to almost meet the median bar distally (Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa, 2013). In contrast, the cephalothorax of the new species is widest about at mid-length and the lateral bars of the chitinous frame are straight and extend only about half the length of the median bar.</p><p>The new species shares many characters with H. cadenati but differs in the form of the subsurface chitinous frame of the dorsal cephalothoracic shield. In H. amyemmarum sp. nov. the lateral bars are straight and only about half as long as the median bar whereas in H. cadenati they are long and curve inwards, almost meeting the tip of the median bar. Hatschekia cadenati also has a unique setation feature in leg 1 as the second exopodal segment carries 2 large setae originating very close together on the inner margin (Lee et al., 2013), whereas in the new species the inner setae on this segment are all reduced and are spaced out along the inner margin of the segment (Fig. 3J).</p><p>The new species differs from H. fuscoguttatus in the shape of the cephalothorax and in the configuration of its subsurface chitinous frame. The lateral margins of the cephalothorax are much more angular in H. fuscoguttatus than in H. amyemmarum sp. nov. and in the former the chitinous frame has lateral bars that are as long as the median bar and continue medially to almost meet the small side branches near the tip of the median bar. The very long apical setae on both rami of leg 2 are a unique feature of H. fuscoguttatus (Lee et al., 2013) . In the new species the setae on leg 2 are all shorter than the rami.</p><p>The description of H. hanguyenvani is difficult to compare because the style of the drawings obscures important details but the rear margin of the dorsal cephalothoracic shield is produced posteriorly into a rounded median lobe (Kazachenko et al., 2017: Figs 3a, 3k), as found in H. pagellibognarei for example, whereas in H. amyemmarum sp. nov. this posterior margin is straight.</p><p>In H. laeopsi the subsurface chitinous frame of the cephalothorax comprises a long median bar plus long lateral bars which curve inwards to almost meet the median bar (Izawa, 2018) whereas in the new species the lateral bars are straight and extend only about half the length of the median bar. Izawa (2018) also figures the rostrum of the female but does not show any lateral rostral processes which are present in the new species (Fig. 3C).</p><p>The frontal margin of the cephalothorax of female H. nohu protrudes medially between the antennules (Villalba, 1986) whereas in the new species the frontal margin is straight. In addition, the genitoabdomen of H. nohu has strongly convex lateral margins and is about 1.5 times wider than long. In contrast, the genitoabdomen of H. amyemmarum sp. nov. has parallel to weakly convex lateral margins and is about as long as wide (depending on the degree of telescoping of the genitoabdomen within the trunk).</p><p>The new species can be readily distinguished from H. papillifera by the shape of the cephalothorax which is 1.24 times longer than wide in the latter, compared to about 1.7 times wider than long in H. amyemmarum sp. nov. The parabasal papillae are unusually large in H. papillifera and are often visible in dorsal view extending beyond the margins of the dorsal cephalothoracic shield in some specimens (Kabata, 1991). They are small and rounded in the new species.</p><p>In H. sphyraeni the subsurface chitinous frame has large lateral bars that curve medially to meet the median bar. It also has only 1 seta on the tip of the endopod of leg 1 (Pillai, 1964), rather than 2 setae as in the new species.</p><p>Hatschekia synagris shares with H. papillifera the possession of unusually large parabasal papillae which extend beyond the lateral margins of the cephalothorax, as shown in Yamaguti’s dorsal habitus view (Yamaguti, 1954: Fig. 55). The presence of these papillae, plus the shape of the cephalothorax of H. synagris, which is just longer than wide compared to 1.7 times wider than long in H. amyemmarum sp. nov., is sufficient to distinguish between these two species.</p><p>Given the differences between these species outlined above, the establishment of a new species to accommodate the material from Arothron hispidus and A. nigropunctatus in Moreton Bay is fully justified.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A9519D35FFECFFA913E5FB0856E7FBE8	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Boxshall, Geoffrey A.;Bernot, James P.	Boxshall, Geoffrey A., Bernot, James P. (2025): The Hatschekiidae (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, with a key to species reported from Australian waters. Zootaxa 5716 (1): 11-65, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2
A9519D35FFE5FFA813E5FB6C53DDF8FC.text	A9519D35FFE5FFA813E5FB6C53DDF8FC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hatschekia bifurcata Yamaguti & Yamasu 1959	<div><p>Hatschekia bifurcata Yamaguti &amp; Yamasu, 1959</p><p>Material examined: 4 ♀♀ from gills of Diploprion bifasciatum Cuvier, 1828 (TC17917) collected off Amity, North Stradbroke Is., Moreton Bay on 03 July 2016 , QM Reg. Nos. W55131; 3 ♀♀ from gills of D. bifasciatum (TC17838) collected off Amity, North Stradbroke Is., Moreton Bay on 05 July 2016 ; 1♀ from gills of D. bifasciatum (TC17918) collected off Amity, North Stradbroke Is., Moreton Bay on 05 July 2016 ; 3 ♀♀ from gills of D. bifasciatum (TC18252) collected at North Wistari, Heron Island, Queensland on 04 February 2017 ; NHMUK Reg. Nos. 2022.209-212 .</p><p>Supplementary description of female</p><p>Total body length excluding caudal rami ranging from 0.86 to 1.33 mm, with a mean of 1.07 mm (n = 9). Body (Fig. 4A) dorsoventrally flattened, comprising anterior cephalothorax and broad trunk bearing minute genitoabdomen posteriorly. Cephalothorax oval, about 1.4 times wider than long (225 x 520 μm). Dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by m-shaped subsurface chitinous frame with long median longitudinal bar only slightly longer than lateral bars. Trunk about 2.4 times longer than wide (range 2.0 to 3.1, n = 9), (0.88 x 0.37 mm); trunk tapering slightly towards transverse posterior margin, with rounded posterolateral corners. Surface of trunk with irregular wrinkles posteriorly (Fig. 4B). Genitoabdomen fused with trunk and comprising fused genital-double and abdominal somites; bearing paired genital apertures dorsally. Caudal rami about 2.0 times longer than wide (30 x 15 μm); armed with 6 naked setae of different lengths; lateral seta located about at middle of lateral margin. Mean number of eggs per egg sac = 11.8 (range 9 to 15, n = 11).</p><p>Rostrum lacking lateral processes (Fig. 4C). Antennule (Fig. 4C) short, indistinctly 5-segmented: segmental setation pattern 10, 6, 4, 1, 12 + ae; 2 unequal setae located on antero-dorsal surface of first segment. Antenna (Fig. 4C) 3-segmented, comprising short unarmed coxa, robust tapering basis, and distal subchela: surface of basis ornamented with minute pits; subchela with swollen and thickened base bearing tiny blunt setal vestige, plus curved distal claw. Parabasal papilla (Fig. 4C) with broad base and rounded apical lobe, located lateral to insertion of antenna. Mandible stylet-like, bearing row of 4 marginal teeth subapically. Maxillule bilobed (Fig. 4D): both lobes armed with 2 setae; setae on outer lobe more robust and slightly longer than on inner lobe; innermost seta on inner lobe overlying oral cone. Maxilla (Fig. 4E) comprising basal segment armed with single inner seta proximally; subchela comprising long segment armed with slender seta at inner extremity and distal claw with minute seta and bifid tip.</p><p>Swimming legs 1 and 2 biramous; members of each leg pair joined by slender interpodal bars (Fig. 4F). Transverse band of weakly sclerotized integument present between interpodal bars. Leg 1 (Fig. 4G) with fused sympod armed with outer and inner setae: exopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment with thickened outer margin bearing outer spine distally; distal segment bearing 3 long setal elements around apex and 2 shorter setae along inner margin: endopod indistinctly segmented; proximal segment bearing inner seta; distal segment armed with 3 unequal setae around apex and 2 reduced setae on inner margin. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 1 on sympod and on exopodal segment 1, and 2 on distal exopodal segment. Leg 2 (Fig. 4H) with fused sympod bearing outer seta; exopod 2-segmented; proximal segment longer than distal, armed with short outer spine; distal segment bearing 3 setae around apex and 1 reduced seta distally on inner margin: endopod indistinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment armed with reduced inner seta; distal segment armed with short outer seta, 1 long and 2 small setae around apex, and 1 inner seta. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 1 on sympod, and 2 each on exopodal segment 1 and endopodal segment 2. Leg 3 located laterally on trunk at about 35% of length (Fig. 4A), represented by small lobe armed with 1 minute and 2 long setae (Fig. 4I). Leg 4 located laterally on trunk at about 77% of length (Fig. 4A), represented by single seta originating directly on trunk surface (Fig. 4J).</p><p>Remarks</p><p>The species name, H. bifurcata, alludes to the “bifurcate” state of the antennule, as interpreted by Yamaguti &amp; Yamasu (1959), a feature considered unique within the genus by Jones (1985). According to Yamaguti &amp; Yamasu (1959), the antennule of the female carries a posteriorly directed “digitiform process with a rudimentary seta at tip” on the distal end of the compound second segment. In his recent redescription of female H. bifurcata, Izawa (2015a) referred to this structure as a “hook-like ventral process tipped with setiform sensillum” but in his subsequent description of the complete developmental series of this species, Izawa (2015b) demonstrated that this structure is simply a modified seta with a flagellate tip, with the setal modification taking place at the moult from Copepodid IV to Co V in the female. The homologous seta is not modified in males.</p><p>This species was originally described based on females collected from the gills of a grammistine serranid, Diploprion bifasciatum, caught in the Inland Sea of Japan (Yamaguti &amp; Yamasu, 1959). There were no additional records until Izawa (2015a) reported a single ovigerous female collected from a new host, the scorpaenid Pterois lunulata Temminck &amp; Schlegel, 1843, caught off Seto, Wakayama Prefecture, Japan. Izawa (2015b) subsequently reported on abundant material, including developmental stages of both sexes, collected at the same locality, both from the original host ( D. bifasciatum) and from Aulacocephalus temmincki Bleeker, 1855, another member of the serranid subfamily Grammistinae .</p><p>The Australian material was collected from the type host and closely resembles the type material in gross morphology. The female ranges in body length from 0.86 to 1.33 mm, which is a wider range than the original Japanese material: the body length was given as 0.95 to 1.1 mm in the type material from D. bifasciatum (Yamaguti &amp; Yamasu, 1959) . However, Izawa (2015a, b) subsequently reported a body length of 0.78 mm for a single female from Pterois lunulata, and 0.66 to 0.98 mm for material from D. bifasciatum and A. temmincki . Unfortunately, the host species of the measured females was not specified by Izawa (2015b). Despite this variation in body size, the Australian material conforms closely to the original description in most other respects.</p><p>The most interesting difference is the unmodified state of the distal seta on the compound second segment of the female antennule (comprising the second and third segments of most other Hatschekia species). The name of the species is actually based on the misinterpretation of this modified seta by Yamaguti &amp; Yamasu (1959), but Izawa (2015b) has shown that this modification takes place at the moult from Copepodid IV to Co V. In the Moreton Bay material this seta is enlarged but lacks the distinctive flagellate tip. This difference is interpreted here as due to geographical variation.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A9519D35FFE5FFA813E5FB6C53DDF8FC	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Boxshall, Geoffrey A.;Bernot, James P.	Boxshall, Geoffrey A., Bernot, James P. (2025): The Hatschekiidae (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, with a key to species reported from Australian waters. Zootaxa 5716 (1): 11-65, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2
A9519D35FFFAFFB413E5FF5152ACFA2D.text	A9519D35FFFAFFB413E5FF5152ACFA2D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hatschekia cernae Goggio 1905	<div><p>Hatschekia cernae Goggio, 1905</p><p>Material examined: 2 ♀♀ from gills of Epinephelus coioides (Hamilton, 1822) (TC17614) collected at Chain Banks, Moreton Bay on 26 June 2016 ; 1 ♀ QM Reg. No. W55132, and 1 ♀ dissected, NMHUK Reg. No. 2022.213 .</p><p>Supplementary description of female</p><p>Total body length excluding caudal rami 1.10 and 1.26 mm (n = 2). Body (Fig. 5A) dorsoventrally flattened, comprising anterior cephalothorax merging imperceptibly with posterior trunk; cephalothorax/trunk boundary not defined; entire body encased in transparent cuticle separated from underlying tissues by distinct gap. Cephalothorax longer than wide, apparently lacking defined dorsal shield, but retaining subsurface chitinous frame (Fig. 5A) comprising long median longitudinal bar running almost entire length of cephalothorax, with 4 transverse cross bars; anteriormost running along frontal margin of cephalothorax and then turning towards posterior and joining second cross bar, third cross bar located about in middle of cephalothorax (each divided at tip), and fourth bar located posteriorly. Trunk as wide as cephalothorax anteriorly, gradually becoming wider posteriorly with maximum width just anterior to level of fourth legs; posterior margin of trunk rounded with raised collar-like ridge around genitoabdomen, appearing like small processes either side (Fig. 5B). Genitoabdomen extremely short; about 3.3 times wider than long; bearing paired genital apertures dorsally. Caudal rami posterolaterally-directed, about 2.4 times longer than wide (57 x 24 μm); each ramus with distinct swollen proximal part (Fig. 5B); armed with 6 slender naked setae of different lengths; lateral seta located about at 54% of lateral margin. Egg sac containing 15 eggs (n = 1).</p><p>Rostrum lacking lateral processes. Antennule (Fig. 5C) indistinctly 5-segmented: segmental setation pattern 7, 5, 4, 1, 13 + ae; apparently lacking setae on antero-dorsal surface of first segment. Antenna (Fig. 5D) 3-segmented, comprising short unarmed coxa, robust tapering basis, and distal subchela: surface of basis ornamented with minute pits; subchela with swollen and thickened base plus curved distal claw. Mandible stylet-like (Fig. 5E), bearing row of 6 minute marginal teeth subapically. Maxillule bilobed (Fig. 5F): both lobes armed with 2 setae; setae on outer lobe more robust and longer than on inner lobe. Maxilla (Fig. 5G) 2-segmented, armed with single inner seta proximally on basal segment; subchela comprising long segment armed with slender seta at inner extremity and distal claw with bifid tip.</p><p>Swimming legs 1 and 2 biramous; members of first leg pair joined by slender interpodal bar (Fig. 5H); second legs displaced laterally, interpodal bar modified to form box-like framework of sclerotized cuticle. Leg 1 (Fig. 5H) with fused sympod armed with outer and inner setae: exopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment with outer distal spine; distal segment bearing 3 long setal elements around apex and 1 shorter seta distally on inner margin: endopod indistinctly segmented; bearing 2 subequal apical setae. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 3 on sympod, 2 each on exopodal segments, and 1 on endopod. Leg 2 (Fig. 5H) with fused sympod bearing outer seta; exopod 2-segmented; proximal segment armed with outer spine; distal segment bearing 3 long setae around apex and 1 well developed seta near middle of inner margin: endopod indistinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment armed with well-developed inner seta; distal segment armed with 1 long and 2 shorter setae on apical margin. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 1 on sympod, 2 each on exopodal segments, 1 on endopodal segment 1, and 4 on endopodal segment 2. Leg 3 located laterally on trunk at 23% of length, represented by distinct lobe armed with 2 hirsute setae (Fig. 5A; inset). Leg 4 located laterally on trunk at 74% of length, represented by single unilaterally pinnate seta originating on slender lobe (Fig. 5A, inset).</p><p>Remarks</p><p>Hatschekia cernae is a very distinctive species, recognizable not only by its unusually modified body form in which the cephalothorax and trunk merge without any marked change in width, but also by the lateral displacement of leg 2 relative to leg 1 and the associated modification of the interpodal bar of leg 2. Up until the present, this distinctive species has only had a single synonym: Capart (1959) described a new species, H. epinepheli Capart, 1959, based on females collected from the gills of Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834) (as E. gigas) caught in the South Atlantic off Angola. Capart distinguished his new species from H. cernae primarily on the basis of its longer and more slender trunk, but Jones (1985) considered that “the length to width ratio was not a valid criterion for distinguishing species of Hatschekia ”, and relegated H. epinepheli to synonymy with H. cernae . This synonymy is accepted here.A second species, H. flatti Uma Devi &amp; Shyamasundari, 1980, is recognized here as a junior subjective synonym of H. cernae . The body shape of H. flatti is identical to that of H. cernae and Uma Devi &amp; Shyamasundari (1980) even noted the peculiar lobes visible in the denser tissue underlying the cuticle that are readily visible in the Australian material (see Fig. 5H). There are no significant differences in the appendages that cannot be attributed to the descriptive standards of the day, and the caudal rami exhibit the same unusual proximal swelling as noted in the Australian material.</p><p>This species was originally described from the Mediterranean by Goggio (1905) based on material collected from the gills of E. marginatus (as Cerna gigas) caught off Palermo, Italy in 1893. Goggio (1905) also mentioned finding a vial of specimens from the gills of Epinephelus aeneus (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1817) (as Cerna aenea). No locality data were given for these additional specimens by Goggio (1905), but in his monograph Brian (1906) appears to indicate that this material may also have come from the Mediterranean. Rose &amp; Vaissière (1952) produced a catalogue of copepod species recorded from the North African coast which listed H. cernae as “assez commun” on the gills of E. marginatus (as E. gigas) and E. aeneus . In their meta-analysis of parasitic copepods recorded from Mediterranean fishes, Raibaut et al. (1998) listed E. marginatus (as Epinephelus guaza) as the host of H. cernae .</p><p>The first record of this species from outside the Mediterranean was from Nuñes-Ruivo (1954) who reported a large sample of H. cernae collected from the gills of the type host E. marginatus (as E. gigas) and a new host, Epinephelus fasciatus (Forsskål, 1775) (as E. alexandrinus), caught off Gorée Island on the Atlantic coast of Senegal. Capart’s (1959) record from Angola (as H. epinepheli) was also from E. marginatus (as E. gigas). Dippenaar’s (2005) inclusion of H. epinepheli in her collated synopsis of siphonostomatoid species from southern African marine fishes is based on Capart’s record.</p><p>Shiino (1957) dramatically expanded the known geographical range of H. cernae with his new record from an unidentified Epinephelus species caught at Naha, Okinawa, Japan. The first record from Indian waters is that of Uma Devi &amp; Shyamasundari (1980) as H. flatti . The host reported by Uma Devi &amp; Shyamasundari (1980) was Johnius sp. and this is the only non-serranid ever mentioned as host of H. cernae . We consider that this host record is probably erroneous and should be treated with caution as there is now no way to confirm the host identification. More recently, Ho &amp; Sey (1996) reported H. cernae from Epinephelus tauvina (Forsskål, 1775) caught off Kuwait in the Arabian Gulf, and Justine et al. (2010a) reported it from Epinephelus morrhua (Valenciennes, 1833) caught in waters off New Caledonia. The discovery of H. cernae on E. coioides in Moreton Bay is the first record of this widespread and distinctive parasite from Australian waters and it also constitutes a new host record.</p><p>Two closely related species of Hatschekia were described from Epinephelus species collected in New Caledonia (Lee et al., 2013): H. cyanopodus Lee, Lee &amp; Boxshall, 2013 from Epinephelus cyanopodus (Richardson, 1846) and H. maculatus Lee, Lee &amp; Boxshall, 2013 from Epinephelus maculatus (Bloch, 1790) . These two species share with H. cernae a similarly flattened body in which the cephalothorax and trunk merge without any marked change in width. However, these species can be distinguished by the endopodal setation of legs 1 and 2: in both H. cyanopodus and H. maculatus the endopod of leg 1 is tipped with a single apical seta whereas it bears 2 apical setae in H. cernae, and in both H. cyanopodus and H. maculatus the endopod of leg 2 bears 2 apical setae compared to 1 medial and 3 apical setae in H. cernae . There are other differences including the well defined posterior margin to the dorsal cephalothoracic shield in H. cyanopodus and H. maculatus compared with the lack of a defined margin in H. cernae .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A9519D35FFFAFFB413E5FF5152ACFA2D	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Boxshall, Geoffrey A.;Bernot, James P.	Boxshall, Geoffrey A., Bernot, James P. (2025): The Hatschekiidae (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, with a key to species reported from Australian waters. Zootaxa 5716 (1): 11-65, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2
A9519D35FFF8FFBD13E5FA2851CFFDA8.text	A9519D35FFF8FFBD13E5FA2851CFFDA8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hatschekia cribbi Boxshall & Bernot 2025	<div><p>Hatschekia cribbi new species</p><p>Type Material</p><p>Holotype ♀ and allotype ♂ from gills of Abudefduf bengalensis (Bloch, 1787) (TC17269) collected off Amity, North Stradbroke Is., Moreton Bay on 19 January 2016; QM Reg. Nos. W55133 (Holotype), W55134 (Allotype); 1 paratype ♀ and 1 paratype ♂, NHMUK Reg. Nos. 2025.1423.</p><p>Differential diagnosis</p><p>Female with oval cephalothorax about 1.9 times wider than long. Dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by m-shaped subsurface chitinous frame. Trunk about 3.3 times longer than wide; bearing prominent posterolateral processes. Genitoabdomen about as long as wide with more-or-less parallel sides. Rostrum with short lateral processes. Parabasal papilla with broad base and rounded apical lobes. Mandible stylet-like with 4 distal teeth. Legs 1 and 2 each joined by simple interpodal bar; endopods indistinctly 2-segmented and each armed with 2 apical setae, lacking inner seta on proximal segment. Leg 3 represented by 2 setae on small papilla.</p><p>Male with dorsal cephalothoracic shield ornamented dorsally with 3 pairs of posteriorly-directed spinous processes. Paired rostral processes present, longer than in female. Antenna with flattened process distally on basis. Interpodal bars joining members of legs 1 and 2, each with 2 pairs of posteriorly-directed spinous processes.</p><p>Description of female</p><p>Total body length excluding caudal rami 1.16 to 1.40 mm (n = 2). Body (Fig. 6A) dorsoventrally flattened, comprising anterior cephalothorax and broad subdivided trunk bearing minute genitoabdomen posteriorly. Cephalothorax oval, about 1.9 times wider than long (198 x 370 μm). Dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by m-shaped subsurface chitinous frame (Fig. 6A) with long median longitudinal bar only slightly longer than lateral bars; lateral bars extending medially at tip, median bar with bilateral extensions at tip. Trunk with second pedigerous somite separated from rest of trunk by deep constriction. Trunk about 3.3 times longer than wide (1.19 x 0.36 mm); trunk with more-or-less parallel lateral margins, tapering slightly posterior to fourth legs; trunk with prominent posterolateral processes (Fig. 6B). Genitoabdomen just wider than long, bearing paired genital apertures dorsally and paired copulatory pores ventrally (with spermatophores attached in Fig. 6B). Caudal rami about 1.4 times longer than wide (32 x 22 μm); armed with 5 naked setae of different lengths; lateral seta located about at 60% of lateral margin.</p><p>Rostrum with paired spinous expansions posteriorly near midline, and bearing small, digitiform, rostral processes laterally (arrowed in Fig. 6C). Antennule (Fig. 6C) indistinctly 5-segmented: segmental setation pattern 10, 5, 4, 1, 13 + ae; 2 unequal setae located on antero-dorsal surface of first segment. Antenna (Fig. 6D) 3-segmented, comprising short unarmed coxa, robust tapering basis, and distal subchela: surface of basis ornamented with minute pits; subchela with swollen and thickened base fused with curved distal claw. Parabasal papilla lobate (Figs. 6C, D) with broad base and rounded apical lobes, located lateral to insertion of antenna. Mandible stylet-like (Fig. 6E) and bearing row of 4 marginal teeth subapically. Maxillule bilobed (Fig. 6F): both lobes armed with 2 setae; setae on outer lobe more robust and longer than on inner lobe. Maxilla (Fig. 6G) armed with single inner seta proximally on basal segment; subchela comprising long segment armed with slender seta at inner extremity and distal claw with bifid tip, plus minute slender seta midway along concave margin.</p><p>Swimming legs 1 and 2 biramous; members of each leg pair joined by slender interpodal bars (Fig. 6H). Trapezoidal box-shape of weakly sclerotized integument present between interpodal bars. Leg 1 (Fig. 6I) with fused sympod armed with outer and inner setae: exopod indistinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment with outer distal spine; distal segment bearing 3 long setal elements around apex: endopod unsegmented, armed with 2 unequal apical setae. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 5 on sympod, 1 on exopodal segment 1 and 3 on segment 2, and 2 distally on endopod. Leg 2 (Fig. 6J) with fused sympod bearing outer seta; exopod indistinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment armed with short outer spine on expanded margin; distal segment bearing 1 small and 1 large seta distally and 2 reduced setae on inner margin: endopod unsegmented, armed with short outer seta and long inner seta on apex. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 4 on sympod, 3 on each exopodal segment, and 2 on endopod. Leg 3 located laterally on trunk at 38% of length, represented by 2 long setae arising on trunk surface. Leg 4 located laterally on trunk at 73% of length, represented by single seta originating directly on trunk surface.</p><p>Description of male.</p><p>Total body length excluding caudal rami 0.44 mm. Body (Figs. 7B–D, 8A) comprising anterior cephalothorax and slender trunk showing traces of segmentation defined by marked constrictions anteriorly and incorporating urosome posteriorly. Cephalothorax about 1.15 times wider than long (160 x 185 μm); irregularly hexagonal with lateral margins longest. Dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by subsurface chitinous frame (Figs. 7C,D, 8A) comprising anterior transverse bar and 3 longitudinal bars, median longitudinal bars with lateral extensions posteriorly joining with medial extensions from each of lateral longitudinal bars; 3 pairs of posteriorly-directed spinous processes present on dorsal surface of cephalothoracic shield (Fig. 7C). Trunk about 2.6 times longer than wide (412 X 160 μm); anteriorly trunk with first two pedigerous somites strongly defined by indentations; greatest width of trunk posterior to level of insertion of fourth legs. Genital apertures located ventrally (Figs. 7B, 8B); paired genital opercula each armed with single seta. Developing spermatophores about 130 μm in length, visible within posterior part of trunk (Fig. 7C). Abdomen wider than long (Fig. 7D), undivided. Caudal rami about 1.9 times longer than wide (45 x 24 μm); armed with large primary apical seta with flagellate tip plus 4 smaller naked setae; primary seta longer than ramus; lateral seta located about in middle of lateral margin.</p><p>Rostrum with medially indented posterior margin; bearing paired lateral rostral processes longer than in female (arrowed in Fig. 8C). Antennule (Fig. 8C) indistinctly 5-segmented: segmental setation pattern 10, 5, 4, 1, 12 + ae. Antenna (Figs. 7A, 8D) comprising unarmed coxa, robust basis and distal subchela: basis bearing flattened chitinous process distally (arrowed in Fig. 7A), projecting distally across base of subchela; subchela consisting of proximal segment, bearing 1 seta incompletely fused to recurved distal claw. Mandible and maxillule as in female. Maxilla (Fig. 8E) as in female but more slender.</p><p>Swimming legs 1 and 2 biramous; members of each leg pair joined by interpodal bars (Figs. 7B, 8F); interpodal bars each with 2 pairs of conspicuous, posteriorly-directed processes. U-shaped band of weakly sclerotized integument present between interpodal bars. Leg 1 (Fig. 8F) with fused sympod armed with outer and inner setae: exopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment bearing outer distal spine; distal segment bearing 3 long setal elements around apex: endopod unsegmented; armed with 2 unequal setae on apex. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 3 on sympod, 2 on exopodal segment 1 and 3 on segment 2, and 3 on endopod. Leg 2 (Fig. 8G) with fused sympod bearing outer seta; exopod 2-segmented; proximal segment bearing long outer spine on outer distal tip of segment; distal segment bearing outer spiniform element and long apical seta distally plus 2 smaller setae on inner margin: endopod indistinctly segmented; ill-defined proximal segment unarmed; distal segment armed with 2 subequal apical setae. Leg 2 ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 6 on sympod, 3 on first exopodal segment, 2 on second segment, and 5 on endopod. Leg 3 located dorsolaterally on trunk at 40% of length (Fig. 8A), represented by two setae originating directly on trunk surface. Leg 4 located laterally on trunk at 60% of length (Fig. 8A), represented by single seta originating directly on trunk surface.</p><p>Etymology: This species is named in honour of Tom Cribb (University of Queensland) who has contributed enormously to our knowledge of metazoan parasites of marine fishes.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>The female of this species possesses a pair of well developed posterolateral lobes on the trunk. These lobes have a rounded distal margin and reach about to the posterior margin of the genitoabdomen. About 50 species of Hatschekia have various types of posterior lobes on the trunk (Table 2). There are, for example, species with pairs of slender digitiform lobes either side of the genitoabdomen, such as H. bicaudata, and there are species with small hemispherical lobes on the postero-lateral margins, such as H. difficilis and H. albirubra Wilson, 1913 . However, there are only 20 described species that possess large well developed lobes with a broad rounded distal margin: H. amphiprocessa Castro-Romero &amp; Baeza-Kuroki, 1986, H. angulata Pearse, 1951, H. boonah Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa, 2013, H. brotulae Cadenat, 1954, H. ellipsocorpa Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa, 2013, H. delamarei Nuñes-Ruivo, 1954, H. elliptica Pillai, 1968, H. geniculata Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa, 2013, H. hippoglossi (Cuvier, 1830), H. insolita Wilson, 1913, H. ischnon Leigh-Sharpe, 1936, H. khahajya Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa, 2010, H. legoulli Nuñes-Ruivo, 1954, H. ostracii Yamaguti, 1953, H. pholas (Wlson, 1906), H. pinguis Wilson, 1908, H. pygmaea T. Scott, in Scott &amp; Scott, 1913, H. rhombocephalis Izawa, 2016, H. thyrsitoidesi Izawa, 2016 and H. triannuli Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa, 2012 . Separating the new species from these 20 species requires detailed comparison.</p><p>In both H. thyrsitoidesi and H. triannuli the rostral area in the middle of the frontal margin of the cephalothorax is crenulate and the subsurface chitinous frame supporting the dorsal cephalothoracic shield includes a rounded feature posteriorly (Izawa, 2016c; Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa, 2012). In the new species the frontal margin is smooth and the chitinous frame does not include a rounded posterior component. Hatschekia khahajya shares the same rounded posterior component in the subsurface chitinous frame supporting the dorsal cephalothoracic shield and also differs from the new species in possessing four spinous processes posteriorly on the bar-like interpodal bars of legs 1 and 2 in the female.</p><p>Hatschekia ellipsocorpa is a very short bodied species: according to Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa (2010), it has “an ovate or ellipsoidal trunk”, which is widest at the base of leg 2 and tapers posteriorly, and it has a Y-shaped chitinous frame supporting the dorsal cephalothoracic shield. In contrast, in the new species the trunk is elongate and subequal in width along most of its length, and the dorsal cephalothoracic shield is supported by an m-shaped chitinous frame.</p><p>Both H. boonah and H. geniculata were described from pufferfish hosts (Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa, 2013). Hatschekia boonah is another short bodied form and can be distinguished from H. cribbi sp. nov. by its rounded triangular cephalothorax supported by a Y-shaped chitinous frame, in contrast to the wider than long cephalothorax supported by an m-shaped frame in the new species. Hatschekia geniculata is redescribed below (see Fig. 11) and is similar to H. cribbi sp. nov. These species differ in the extent of the posterolateral lobes on the trunk of the female, which is as long as the genitoabdomen in H cribbi sp. nov. but only half the length of the genitoabdomen in H. geniculata . In addition, the trunk of the female tapers posteriorly in the latter but retains more or less the same width in H. cribbi sp. nov.</p><p>The new species differs from H. pygmaea in having much better developed posterolateral lobes on the trunk of the female and in lacking the dorsal swelling present on the trunk just posterior to the cephalothorax in the latter species (Kabata, 1979). There are numerous other differences including the shape of the parabasal papilla (small and conical in H. pygmaea versus bilobate in the new species), the number of teeth on the mandible (2 in H. pygmaea versus 4 in the new species), and the number of distal setae on the endopod of leg 1 (3 in H. pygmaea versus 2 in the new species).</p><p>Jones (1985) commented that H. delamarei was in need of redescription but Nuñes-Ruivo (1954) provided sufficient detail to distinguish between this species and the new species. In particular, the cephalothorax is rectangular in H. delamarei and the endopod of leg 2 carries 5 setae, compared to the ovoid cephalothorax and only 2 setae on this endopod exhibited by the new species.</p><p>In female H. ischnon the cephalothorax is about 1.2 times wider than long (Leigh-Sharpe, 1936), compared to 1.9 times in H. cribbi sp. nov. and the endopods of both legs 1 and 2 are armed with 4 setae, compared to only 2 in H. cribbi sp. nov.</p><p>In their redescription of H. legouli, Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa (2009b) recorded the presence of 6 setae on the endopods of both legs 1 and 2 and noted the presence of broad, rounded expansions on the lateral margins of the rostrum. In contrast the new species has only 2 setae on the endopods of both legs and the rostrum bears small digitiform lateral processes.</p><p>Hatschekia pholas differs from the new species in possessing a greatly expanded dorsal cephalothoracic shield which extends posteriorly over the anterior part of the trunk. The short dorsal cephalothoracic shield of the new species is about 1.9 times wider than long and has no posterior expansion. The shape of the dorsal cephalothoracic shield also allows us to distinguish between H. ostracii and the new species. In H. ostracii the shield is just longer than wide and is supported by a T-shaped chitinous frame (Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa, 2009), whereas in the new species the shield is distinctly wider than long and is supported by an m-shaped frame. Another major difference is that the female of H. ostracii possesses four posterior processes on the interpodal bars of legs 1 and 2, compared to the smooth interpodal bars in the female of the new species.</p><p>In H. amphiprocessa the posterolateral processes on the trunk are short (Castro-Romero &amp; Baeza-Kuroki, 1986) and are more laterally directed than in the new species but this species is most readily distinguished by the presence of paired posterolateral processes on the dorsal cephalothoracic shield. The new species has no processes on the cephalothorax.</p><p>The original description of H. angulata lacked detail (Pearse, 1951) but Jones (1985) re-examined the type material and noted that the antennules were short, only reaching just over half way towards the lateral margin of the dorsal cephalothoracic shield, and that the contracted trunk was subtriangular, tapering strongly posteriorly, so the anterior extremity was twice the width of the posterior end. The length of the antennule and the different shape of the trunk are sufficient to distinguish the new species from H. angulata . Jones (1985) also redescribed the types of H. insolita, noting that the dorsal cephalothoracic shield was supported by a T-shaped chitinous frame and that the caudal rami were more than 3.0 times longer than wide compared to about 1.3 times in the new species, which also has an m-shaped chitinous frame supporting the dorsal cephalothoracic shield.</p><p>The body proportions of H. elliptica differ from those of the new species. The trunk of H. elliptica is described as elliptical and nearly twice as long as wide (Pillai, 1968), whereas, in contrast, the elongate trunk of the new species is linear and about 3.3 times longer than wide. However, small differences in trunk proportions are considered unreliable as a criterion for species discrimination in Hatschekia (Jones, 1985; Kabata, 1991). The details of leg setation may also show some intraspecific variability but there are major differences between these species: in the new species the endopods of both legs 1 and 2 are armed with 2 setae whereas in H. elliptica there are 5 and 4 setae respectively. These differences are sufficient to distinguish between these species. Some of the other apparent differences, for example the segmentation and setation of the antennules, are generally unreliable as they were not accurately described in much of the older literature.</p><p>Hatschekia brotulae is similar to the new species: it has an m-shaped chitinous frame supporting the dorsal cephalothoracic shield and the trunk of the type specimen is about 2.8 times longer than wide (Nuñes-Ruivo, 1954). Comparison with the illustrations of Nuñes-Ruivo (1954) suggests that the antenna is more slender and has a shorter terminal claw than in the new species, and that the caudal rami are just more than twice as long as wide, compared with only 1.3 times in the new species.</p><p>There are numerous detailed differences that serve to distinguish between H. rhombocephalis and the new species. Hatschekia rhombocephalis has caudal rami that are 2.2 times longer than wide, and the endopods of legs 1 and 2 are armed with 5 and 6 setal elements, respectively (Izawa, 2016c). In contrast in the new species the caudal rami are only 1.3 times longer than wide and the endopods of legs 1 and 2 both carry only 2 apical setae.</p><p>Finally, the type species H. hippoglossi, is also characterized by the possession of paired posterolateral lobes and an elongate genitoabdomen that gives a trilobate appearance to the posterior end of the trunk (Jones, 1985). Relative to most Hatschekia species, the type species is enormous, ranging from 2.6 to 9.3 mm in total length (Schram &amp; Apsholm, 1997). This contrasts with a body length of about 2.4 mm in the new species. In addition, the endopods of both legs 1 and 2 are armed with 4 setae in H. hippoglossi (see Kabata, 1979) compared to 2 setae on this ramus of both legs in the new species. These differences from similar species are sufficient to justify the establishment of a new species.</p><p>The only species previously recorded from a species of Abudefduf Forsskål, 1775 is H. nahaensis Yamaguti, 1953 . This species was described from females collected in Okinawa, Japan, and Jones (1985) considered that it was in need of redescription. The new species differs from H. nahaensis in possessing large rounded posterolateral lobes on the trunk; the trunk of H. nahaensis has rounded posterolateral margins devoid of any lobes.</p><p>The male found on A. bengalensis and described above is treated as conspecific with the female despite two significant differences, here attributed to sexual dimorphism. The male possesses 6 (3 pairs) of spinous processes on the dorsal cephalothoracic shield whereas the female lacks such ornamentation. A similar sexual dimorphism has already been noted in H. couardi, in which the male only has 2 pairs of such processes (see Izawa, 2015a). More remarkable is the presence of unornamented, linear interpodal bars between the members of leg 1 and leg 2 in the female in contrast to the presence of 2 pairs of large spinous processes on the interpodal bars of both legs in the male. Spinous processes are reported from the females of 26 species of Hatschekia (Table 3), but the only species known from both sexes, H. monacanthi Yamaguti, 1939, has ornamented interpodal bars in both. Prior to this study, sexual dimorphism in the interpodal bars of legs 1 and 2 had not been reported in this family, although males are known for only a minority of hatschekiid species. This raises some uncertainty concerning the conspecificity of the two females and two males found on the same individual host fish in Moreton Bay. However, the holotype female of H. cribbi sp. nov. on this host carried a pair of spermatophores which must have been recently deposited by a male, and the only males present were those described above. This leads to the most parsimonious conclusion, that the male is conspecific with the fertilized female. Remarkably, the male of H. pholas is reported for the first time below and this species also displays sexual dimorphism in the interpodal bars, which are smooth in females but ornamented with 4 pairs of posteriorly-directed processes in males.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A9519D35FFF8FFBD13E5FA2851CFFDA8	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Boxshall, Geoffrey A.;Bernot, James P.	Boxshall, Geoffrey A., Bernot, James P. (2025): The Hatschekiidae (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, with a key to species reported from Australian waters. Zootaxa 5716 (1): 11-65, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2
A9519D35FFF1FFB913E5FDAC51AFFB58.text	A9519D35FFF1FFB913E5FDAC51AFFB58.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hatschekia cutmorei Boxshall & Bernot 2025	<div><p>Hatschekia cutmorei new species</p><p>Type Material</p><p>Holotype ♀ and 12 paratype ♀♀ from gills of Glaucosoma scapulare Ramsay, 1881 (TC18800) collected at Station 33S (offshore), Moreton Bay on 30 July 2017. QM Reg. No. W55135 (Holotype), W55136 (6 paratype ♀♀), NHMUK 2025.1424 - 1429 (6 paratype ♀♀).</p><p>Differential diagnosis</p><p>Female body encased within transparent cuticle separated from underlying tissues. Cephalothorax about 1.4 times wider than long; dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by m-shaped subsurface chitinous frame. Trunk about 3.7 times longer than wide; lacking any posterior processes. Genitoabdomen wider than long, tapering posteriorly from broad base. Rostrum lacking lateral processes. Parabasal papilla comprising single rounded lobe. Mandible stylet-like with 5 distal teeth. Legs 1 and 2 each joined by simple interpodal bar; first exopodal segment of both legs with long outer spine extending well beyond tip of ramus; endopods distinctly 2-segmented with 2 apical setae on both legs plus additional inner seta on second segment of leg 1; proximal segment unarmed in both. Leg 3 represented by 2 setae on small papilla.</p><p>Description of female</p><p>Total body length excluding caudal rami ranging from 1.33 to 1.62 mm, with a mean of 1.46 mm (n = 10). Body (Fig. 9A) comprising anterior cephalothorax and long cylindrical trunk fused with small conical genitoabdomen posteriorly; entire body encased in transparent cuticle separated from underlying tissues by distinct gap.Cephalothorax indistinctly defined from trunk; about 1.4 times wider than long (203 x 288 μm) and about 16% as long as trunk: dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by m-shaped subsurface chitinous frame with median and paired lateral longitudinal bars similar in length. Trunk about 3.7 times longer than wide (1.24 x 0.32 mm); with maximum width about in middle, with rounded posterior margin. Genitoabdomen wider than long (Fig. 9B) comprising fused genital and abdominal somites; bearing paired genital apertures dorsally. Caudal rami more-or-less laterally-directed, about 2.0 times longer than wide (19 x 9 μm); armed with 5 naked setae of different lengths; proximal lateral seta located about at middle of lateral margin. Mean number of eggs per egg sac = 16 (range 13 to 23, n = 11).</p><p>Rostrum lacking lateral processes (Fig. 9C). Antennule (Fig. 9C) short, indistinctly 5-segmented: segmental setation pattern 9, 5, 4, 1, 12 + ae; 2 unequal setae located on antero-dorsal surface of first segment. Antenna (Fig. 9D) 3-segmented, comprising short unarmed coxa, robust tapering basis, and distal subchela: surface of basis ornamented with minute pits; subchela large with swollen and thickened base plus long curved distal claw. Parabasal papilla (Fig. 9D) rounded, located lateral to insertion of antenna. Mandible stylet-like, bearing 5 minute marginal teeth subapically (Fig. 9E). Maxillule bilobed (Fig. 9F): inner lobe bearing single short seta, outer lobe armed with 2 large setae. Maxilla (Fig. 9G) armed with single inner seta proximally on first segment; subchela comprising long segment armed with slender seta at inner extremity and distal claw with bifid tip.</p><p>Swimming legs 1 and 2 biramous; members of each leg pair joined by slender interpodal bars (Fig. 9H); short, paired cuticular thickenings present between interpodal bars, not meeting in midline. Leg 1 (Fig. 9I) with fused sympod armed with outer and inner setae: exopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment with long curved outer distal spine extending beyond tip of apical setae on ramus; distal segment bearing 2 long setal elements on apex and 1 slightly shorter seta distally on inner margin: endopod 2-segmented; proximal segment unarmed; distal segment armed with 2 long setae on apex and 1 reduced seta at mid inner margin. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 1 on sympod, 2 on exopodal segment 2, and 3 each on exopodal segment 1 and endopodal segment 2. Leg 2 (Fig. 9J) with fused sympod bearing outer seta; exopod 2-segmented; proximal segment armed with long curved outer spine; distal segment bearing 2 apical setae: endopod 2-segmented, typically observed lying across exopod; proximal segment unarmed; distal segment armed with 1 small and 1 minute seta on apex. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 2 each on sympod, both exopodal segments and endopodal segment 2, and 1 row on endopodal segment 1. Leg 3 located laterally on trunk at 36% of length (Fig. 9A), represented by 2 setae arising directly from small knob-like vestige on trunk surface (Fig. 9K). Leg 4 located laterally on trunk at 80% of length (Fig. 9A), represented by single seta originating directly on trunk surface (Fig. 9L).</p><p>Etymology: This species is named in honour of Scott Cutmore (University of Queensland) who collected this material and made it available for study.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>This species is characterized by the marked separation of the external cuticle covering the body and its underlying tissue. This tissue separation is apparent in the illustrations of numerous other Hatschekia species but is typically only visible around the margins of the trunk. The taxonomic significance of this character state has rarely been discussed and is difficult to assess partly because of the possibility that the fixation or preservation of the maerial could be a causative factor in the tissue separation. For example, in H. hanguyenvani the tissue separation is extremely marked over both the cephalothorax and the trunk and has resulted in the formation of “funnel-shaped tubes” within the cuticle on the lateral and dorsal surfaces of the trunk (Kazachenko et al., 2017). However, this material was collected in 1960 and not studied until 2017 and it seems possible that 57 years in preservative may have caused shrinkage of the inner tissues away from the trunk cuticle forming these tubular structures. Similarly, in species such as H. jorgei Nuñes-Ruivo, 1954 and H. pontini Nuñes-Ruivo, 1954, the tissue separation is particularly well developed around the trunk but the illustrations of both species (Nuñes-Ruivo, 1954: figs. 7 &amp; 8) show females with inflated cylindrical trunks and, again, it seems likely that the fixation or state of preservation is contributing to this separation effect in these species. However, in other species such as H. cernae, the tissue separation in freshly collected specimens is continuous over the trunk and cephalothorax, and the specimen is dorsoventrally flattened rather than having become inflated (Fig. 5A). Other illustrations of H. cernae (e.g. Uma Devi &amp; Shyamasundari, 1980) show the same tissue separation and it is inferred here that this is not a fixation artefact in this species.</p><p>Hatschekia cutmorei sp. nov. shows marked tissue separation externally over the cephalothorax and the trunk, as in H. siganicola El-Rashidy &amp; Boxshall, 2011, and these two species have similar body proportions. They differ, however, in numerous characters relating to legs 1 and 2: in H. siganicola the legs are visible in dorsal view but in the new species the legs are smaller and not visible in dorsal view; the outer margin spine on the first exopodal segment of legs 1 and 2 does not reach the tip of the ramus in H. siganicola but is unusually long in the new species and extends well beyond the tip of the ramus, and indeed, beyond the tips of the apical setae as well in leg 1; finally, the endopod of leg 1 is armed with 3 setae and that of leg 2 with 2 apical setae in H. cutmorei sp. nov. whereas in H. siganicola there is a total of 5 setae on the endopod of each of these legs.</p><p>There are 40 species of Hatschekia which have a short cephalothorax relative to the length of the trunk, i.e. the cephalothorax is less than 25% of the length of the trunk (listed in Table 5). Included in this list are the extremely elongate species, such as H. gracilis and H. pagrosomi, in which the cephalothorax comprises less than 10% of the length of the trunk. However, the majority of species in Table 5 have a cephalothorax that is between 10% and 24% as long as the trunk. The new species, with its cephalothorax comprising 16% of the trunk length, falls about in the middle of this range.</p><p>The setation of the endopod of leg 2 of the species in Table 5 falls into three categories: 27 species carry 4 or more setae on the distal segment of the endopod of leg 2; two species ( H. amplicapa and H. becuni) are armed with 3 vestigial setal elements on the tip of the endopod of leg 2; H. ovalis has only 1 seta; and the remaining 8 species carry only 2 apical setae on the distal endopodal segment, as found in H. cutmorei sp. nov.</p><p>Detailed comparisons are presented here to distinguish the new species from these eight congeners: H. branchiostegi, H. caudata, H. crenulata, H. cylindrica, H. linearis, H. nahaensis, H. nemipteri, and H. pseudolabri . Only one of these species, H. nemipteri, retains the inner seta on the first endopodal segment of leg 2 (Izawa, 2016a). All the other species, including H. cutmorei sp. nov., lack this inner seta. Hatschekia nemipteri also differs in the extent of the subsurface chitinous frame which is restricted to the anterior half of the dorsal cephalothoracic shield in the new species but extends well into the posterior half of the shield in H. nemipteri . There are numerous additional differences including the lengths of the outer spines on the first exopodal segments of legs 1 and 2.</p><p>The configuration of the rami of legs 1 and 2 of H. cutmorei sp. nov. is unusual for the genus. The first exopodal segment of leg 1 carries an elongate outer spine which reaches well beyond the tips of the apical setal elements on the second exopodal segment (Fig. 9I). Similarly, the outer spine on the first exopodal segment of leg 2 is robust and reaches well beyond the distal margin of the ramus (Fig. 9J). In addition, the endopod of leg 2 of H. cutmorei sp. nov. is 2-segmented and its 2 apical setae are markedly unequal in length. This combination of characters serves to distinguish H. cutmorei sp. nov. from H. crenulata, H. cylindrica, H. linearis, and H. nahaensis, all of which have short spines on the first exopodal segments of legs 1 and 2 that do not reach the tip of the ramus and have subsimilar apical setae on the endopod of leg 2. Hatschekia crenulata and H. nahaensis are both also distinguishable by having a strongly crenulate frontal margin of the cephalothorax (Kabata, 1991; Yamaguti, 1953). According to Izawa’s (2016b) redescription of H. cylindrica, this species differs from H. cutmorei sp. nov. in having a longer median bar on the subsurface chitinous frame which reaches well into the posterior half of the cephalothoracic shield. It also differs in leg 3 which is represented by a single seta in H. cylindrica, compared with 2 setae in H. cutmorei sp. nov.</p><p>Hatschekia branchiostegi was redescribed in detail by Izawa (2018) based on material collected from Branchiostegus japonicus (Houttuyn, 1782) caught in Japanese waters. The subsurface chitinous frame is restricted to the anterior half of the dorsal cephalothoracic shield and comprises a simple median bar and paired lateral bars which are formed at their tips, as in H. cutmorei sp. nov. However, these species differ in the shape of the cephalothorax which is well defined posteriorly and is about 1.5 times wider than long in H. branchiostegi compared with ill-defined posteriorly and about 1.4 times wider.</p><p>Pillai (1985) established H. caudata to accommodate material from a Lutjanus species collected off Kerala, India. The trunk of H. caudata narrows markedly about at the level of leg 4 to produce a “tail-like” posterior region. In contrast, there is only a slight and very gradual narrowing of the trunk posteriorly in the new species. The endopod of leg 2 of H. caudata appears unsegmented and bears 2 long apical setae whereas the new species has a 2-segmented endopod bearing 1 reduced seta plus a vestigial seta apically.</p><p>In H. pseudolabri the cephalothorax is longer than wide and the subsurface chitinous frame comprises short lateral bars reaching to about the mid-level of the dorsal cephalothoracic shield plus a long median bar with a bifid tip that nearly reaches the rear margin of the shield (Yamaguti, 1953). This differs markedly from H. cutmorei sp. nov. in which the cephalothorax is wider than long and the chitinous frame is restricted to the anterior half of the shield.</p><p>The above comparisons demonstrate that there are sufficient distinguishing characters to justify the establishment of a new species to accommodate the material from Glaucosoma scapulare .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A9519D35FFF1FFB913E5FDAC51AFFB58	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Boxshall, Geoffrey A.;Bernot, James P.	Boxshall, Geoffrey A., Bernot, James P. (2025): The Hatschekiidae (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, with a key to species reported from Australian waters. Zootaxa 5716 (1): 11-65, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2
A9519D35FFF5FFB813E5FAFC515AF8FC.text	A9519D35FFF5FFB813E5FAFC515AF8FC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hatschekia difficilis Kabata 1991	<div><p>Hatschekia difficilis Kabata, 1991</p><p>Material examined: 1 ♀ from gills of Scarus ghobban Forsskål, 1775 (TC16969) collected off Amity, North Stradbroke Is., Moreton Bay on 11 January 2016, QM Reg. No. W55137 .</p><p>Supplementary description of female</p><p>Total body length excluding caudal rami 1.63 mm.Body(Fig.10A)cylindrical, comprising anterior cephalothorax and elongate trunk tapering posteriorly to minute triangular genitoabdomen. Cephalothorax oval, about 1.3 times wider than long (185 x 234 μm). Dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by T-shaped subsurface chitinous frame with long median longitudinal bar extending to about 80% of shield length. Trunk about 6.6 times longer than wide (1.45 x 0.22 mm); with greatest width in posterior half; trunk tapering strongly towards posterior extremity appearing triangular with rounded apex (in dorsal view). Pair of subspherical swellings present posterolaterally, just anterior to level of genital apertures (Fig. 10A, B). Genitoabdomen fused with trunk and comprising fused genital-double and abdominal somites; bearing paired genital apertures dorsally. Caudal rami about twice as long as wide (23 x 11 μm); armed with 6 naked setae of different lengths; lateral seta located about at middle of lateral margin. Both egg sacs containing 9 eggs.</p><p>Rostrum bearing paired lateral rostral processes (Fig.10C).Antennule (Fig. 10C) short, indistinctly 5-segmented: segmental setation pattern 10, 5, 4, 1, 11 + ae; 2 unequal setae located on dorsal surface of first segment. Antenna (Fig. 10D) 3-segmented, comprising short unarmed coxa, robust tapering basis, and distal subchela: surface of basis ornamented with minute pits; subchela with swollen and thickened base drawn out into curved claw. Mandible (Fig. 10E) stylet-like, bearing row of 4 marginal teeth subapically. Maxillule bilobed (Fig. 10F): both lobes armed with 2 setae, setae on outer lobe more robust and slightly longer than on inner lobe. Maxilla carried on pedestal produced into curved posterior flange (arrowed in Fig. 10G); coxobasis armed with single inner seta proximally on basal part; subchela comprising long segment armed with slender seta at inner extremity and distal claw with bifid tip.</p><p>Swimming legs 1 and 2 biramous; members of each leg pair joined by slender interpodal bars (Fig. 10H). Transverse band of weakly sclerotized integument present between interpodal bars. Leg 1 (Fig. 10I) with fused sympod armed with outer and inner setae: exopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment with outer distal spine; distal segment bearing 3 long setal elements around apex and 3 reduced setae along inner margin: endopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment unarmed; distal segment armed with 3 unequal setae around apex and 2 reduced setae on inner margin. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 2 on sympod, 3 on exopodal segment 1, and 1 each on distal segments of both rami. Leg 2 (Fig. 10J) with fused sympod bearing outer seta; exopod 2- segmented; with articulation between segments offset; proximal segment bearing short outer spine on extended outer distal tip of segment; distal segment bearing 2 unequal setal elements on apex and 1 reduced seta distally on inner margin: endopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment unarmed; distal segment armed with outer seta, 3 unequal setae around apex, and 1 rudimentary inner seta. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 1 on sympod, and 3 on exopodal segment 1 and endopodal segment 2, and 2 on exopodal segment 2. Leg 3 located laterally on trunk at about 28% of length (Fig. 10A), represented by small posterolaterally-directed lobe armed with 1 short and 2 long setae (Fig. 10K). Leg 4 not observed.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>The only previous report of H. difficilis is the original description which was based on three females collected from the same host species, Scarus ghobban, at Green Island, Queensland (Kabata, 1991). There are some differences between Kabata’s description and the new material, but the key similarities, such as the presence of subspherical swellings located posterolaterally on the trunk just anterior to the genital apertures and the presence of 3 setae on leg 3, allow confidence in the identification. The new material has a more elongate trunk than the type material, but body proportions in hatschekiids are notoriously unreliable as taxonomic characters (Jones, 1985; Kabata, 1991). The body length of two type specimens was given as 1.24 mm and the length to width ratio of the trunk is 3.4:1 (measured from Figure 41 in Kabata (1991)) compared with 1.63 mm and 6.6:1, respectively, in the new material. I consider that this difference is due to the state of contraction of the material. Kabata (1991) described a transverse welt on the trunk just behind the cephalothorax but this welt, which is inferred to result from contraction of the longitudinal trunk muscles, is not expressed in the new material, which appears to be more relaxed. These differences between contracted and uncontracted specimens are of a similar magnitude to those illustrated by Kabata (1991) for a different hatschekiid species, Prohatschekia awatati . Kabata figured two females of P. awatati one of which was contracted: the body length of the contracted specimen was 0.77 mm (measured from his Figure 1) and the length to width ratio of the trunk was 1.2:1, whereas the uncontracted female had a body length of 1.23 mm and the L:W ratio was 2.0:1.</p><p>The segmentation of legs 1 and 2 is the same in both sets of material, as is the setation of both rami of leg 1 but in the new material the distal endopodal segment of leg 2 carries a seta on the outer margin and a rudimentary seta on the inner margin; neither of which was observed by Kabata (1991). Other differences include the presence of two setal elements on the inner lobe of the maxillule (compared to only one found by Kabata (1991)), and the setation of the antennule. The reported differences in both of these limbs are attributed to the difficulties encountered by Kabata (1991) in observing his material. The presence of lateral processes on the rostrum was not mentioned by Kabata (1991) but these are present and are well developed (Fig. 10C). Similarly, the pedestal which carries the maxilla in Hatschekia has a well developed cuticular flange along its posterior margin in the Moreton Bay material, which was not mentioned by Kabata (1991). This is an unusual character state which is useful in species discrimination.</p><p>Examination of a sample of Hatschekia from a Scarus ghobban collected by Jean-Lou Justine in New Caledonia (Fish No: JNC2515) revealed the presence of two females of H. difficilis, although a second as yet undescribed species of Hatschekia was present in greater numbers on this fish host. This New Caledonian find constitutes the first record of H. difficilis from outside Australian waters.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A9519D35FFF5FFB813E5FAFC515AF8FC	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Boxshall, Geoffrey A.;Bernot, James P.	Boxshall, Geoffrey A., Bernot, James P. (2025): The Hatschekiidae (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, with a key to species reported from Australian waters. Zootaxa 5716 (1): 11-65, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2
A9519D35FFCAFF8413E5FF5150CEFD18.text	A9519D35FFCAFF8413E5FF5150CEFD18.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hatschekia geniculata Uyeno & Nagasawa 2013	<div><p>Hatschekia geniculata Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa, 2013</p><p>Material examined</p><p>5 ♀♀ from gills of Arothron hispidus (TC17325) collected off Mud Island, Moreton Bay on 20 January 2016, QM Reg. Nos. W55138 ; 1 ♀ from gills of A. hispidus (TC17119) collected off Peel Island, Moreton Bay on 14 January 2016 ; 2 ♀♀ from gills of Arothron nigropunctatus (TC17278) collected off Amity, North Stradbroke Is., Moreton Bay on 07 January 2016; NHMUK Reg. Nos. 2024.331-332 .</p><p>Supplementary description of female</p><p>Total body length excluding caudal rami 1.26 to 1.54 mm, with a mean of 1.42 mm (n = 5). Body (Fig. 11A) comprising anterior cephalothorax and long cylindrical trunk bearing pyriform genitoabdomen posteriorly. Cephalothorax rhomboidal with angular lateral margins; about 1.5 times wider than long (245 x 373 μm). Dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by m-shaped subsurface chitinous frame with median and paired lateral longitudinal bars of similar length, incomplete transverse bars located at posterior ends of longitudinal bars. Trunk about 2.9 times longer than wide (1.18 x 0.40 mm); with maximum width just anterior to level of third legs; median chitinous bar present dorsally just posterior to cephalothoracic shield; posterolateral corners forming broadly rounded processes and posterior margin of trunk projecting in dorsal midline and overlapping base of genitoabdomen (Fig. 11B). Genitoabdomen wider than long (Fig. 11C) comprising fused genital and abdominal somites; bearing paired genital apertures dorsally. Caudal rami about 1.5 times longer than wide (28 x 19 μm); armed with 5 naked setae of different lengths; lateral seta located about at 58% of lateral margin. Mean number of eggs per egg sac = 15.7 (range 10 to 21, n = 9).</p><p>Rostrum bearing paired spinous processes posteriorly and small lateral processes (arrowed in Fig. 11D). Antennule (Fig. 11D) short, indistinctly 4-segmented: segmental setation pattern 10, 5, 5, 12 + ae; 2 unequal setae located on antero-dorsal surface of first segment. Antenna (Fig. 11E) 3-segmented, comprising short unarmed coxa, tapering basis, and distal subchela: surface of basis ornamented with minute pits; subchela with swollen and thickened base plus curved distal claw. Parabasal papilla small and rounded, located lateral to insertion of antenna. Mandible stylet-like, bearing 4 marginal teeth subapically. Maxillule bilobed; both lobes armed with 2 unequal setae. Maxilla (Fig. 11F) slender, coxobasis armed with single inner seta proximally; subchela comprising long segment armed with slender seta at inner extremity and distal claw armed with minute seta and with bifid tip.</p><p>Swimming legs 1 and 2 biramous; members of each leg pair joined by slender interpodal bars (Fig. 11G). Leg 1 (Fig. 11H) with fused sympod armed with outer and inner setae: exopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment with outer distal spine; distal segment bearing 3 long setal elements around apex and 1 short seta distally on inner margin: endopod unsegmented, armed with 2 long apical setae plus 1 setal vestige on inner margin. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 2 on sympod and exopodal segment 1, and 3 each on exopodal segment 1 and on endopod. Leg 2 (Fig. 11I) with fused sympod bearing outer seta; exopod 2-segmented; proximal segment armed with outer spine; distal segment bearing 2 long setae on apex plus small seta distally on inner margin: endopod indistinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment unarmed; distal segment armed with 3 unequal setae around apex. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules on both rami: 3 each on exopodal segments, 1 row on endopodal segment 1 and 3 on endopodal segment 2. Leg 3 located laterally on trunk at 34% of length (Fig. 11A), represented by 2 setae arising directly from trunk surface. Leg 4 located laterally on trunk at 64% of length (Fig. 11A), represented by single seta originating directly on trunk surface.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>This species was established by Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa (2013) to accommodate material collected from two species of Arothron Müller, 1841, A. hispidus and A. stellatus, caught off the Ryukyu Islands. Interestingly, both of these two hosts were sampled in Moreton Bay but only A. hispidus hosted H. geniculata . The other host in Moreton Bay was A. nigropunctatus, a new host record for this copepod.</p><p>This species was named after its “bent urosome” which was described as bent ventrally and bearing a dorsal protrusion (Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa, 2013). We interpret this feature slightly differently in our Australian material: the posterior end of the trunk forms distinctive paired posterolateral lobes in the Australian material (Fig. 11A–B) while in the Japanese material these lobes are figured (Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa, 2013: Fig. 5B) but appear less well developed. Also the median lobe that extends dorsally over the proximal part of the genitoabdomen (Fig. 11B) is interpreted here as part of the trunk rather than as a “bent abdomen with a dorsal protrusion” (Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa, 2013: 67). The telescoping of the genitoabdomen up into the trunk has not previously been discussed in Hatschekia but this appears to be the explanation for the much longer genitoabdomen in Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa’s (2013) figure 5B, compared with their figure 5A. In dorsal view the genitoabdomen of the Australian material seems partly telescoped within the trunk as in Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa’s figure 5A. The degree of telescoping of the genitoabdomen can influence perceptions of the relative length of the genitoabdomen and posterolateral trunk lobes, so this possibility needs to be considered when assessing the morphology of the female.</p><p>The Australian material is very similar to H. geniculata as described by Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa (2013). They share, for example: the rhomboidal dorsal cephalothoracic shield and the shape of its subsurface chitinous frame, the presence of small lateral processes on the rostrum (arrowed in Fig. 11D), the setal formula of the antennule is the same, and the antenna and mouthparts are the same (mandible and maxillule not figured here), and there is only a single difference in the setation of legs 1 and 2: the endopod of leg 2 in the original description carries 2 unequal apical setae whereas in the Australian material an additional small inner seta in present on the apex of this ramus. This minor difference is not regarded as significant because such small setae on the legs are difficult to observe and hard to to distinguish from ornamentation elements, and because leg setation has been interpreted as variable in Hatschekia (see Jones, 1985; Kabata, 1991).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A9519D35FFCAFF8413E5FF5150CEFD18	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Boxshall, Geoffrey A.;Bernot, James P.	Boxshall, Geoffrey A., Bernot, James P. (2025): The Hatschekiidae (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, with a key to species reported from Australian waters. Zootaxa 5716 (1): 11-65, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2
A9519D35FFC8FF8113E5FD3C5686F86C.text	A9519D35FFC8FF8113E5FD3C5686F86C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hatschekia pholas (Wilson 1906) Broad	<div><p>Hatschekia pholas (Wilson, 1906)</p><p>Syn: Caetrodes pholas Wilson, 1906</p><p>Material examined</p><p>22 ♀♀ and 1♂ from gills of Arothron stellatus (Anonymous, 1798) (TC17188) collected off Peel Island, Moreton Bay on 15 January 2016 : 16 ♀♀ QM Reg. Nos. W55139, 6 ♀♀ and 1♂ NHMUK Reg. Nos. 2022.217- 223. The male was found in amplexus with a female .</p><p>Supplementary description of female.</p><p>Total body length excluding caudal rami ranging from 1.21 to 1.51 mm, with a mean of 1.38 mm (n = 5). Body (Figs. 1A–C, 12A) dorsoventrally depressed, comprising large anterior cephalothorax and short trunk bearing genitoabdomen posteriorly. Cephalothorax broader than trunk anteriorly, narrower posteriorly, longer than wide (690 x 650 μm); dorsal cephalothoracic shield with evenly convex frontal margin and produced posteriorly into flattened plate-like extension concealing anterior part of trunk in dorsal view (Fig. 1C): shield supported by T-shaped subsurface chitinous frame. Trunk about 1.4 to 1.5 times longer than wide (850 x 560 μm); with greatest width about at level of insertion of third legs; tapering slightly from level of fourth legs towards posterior extremity; rear margin with rounded posterolateral lobes extending beyond rear margin of genitoabdomen: trunk with paired dorsolateral swellings just posterior to rear margin of dorsal cephalothoracic shield (Fig. 1B). Genitoabdomen (Fig. 12B) wider than long excluding caudal rami, comprising fused genital and abdominal somites; bearing paired genital apertures dorsally. Widest proximal part of genitoabdomen apparently telescoped within rear part of trunk. Caudal rami about 1.8 times longer than wide; armed with 5 naked setae of different lengths; apical seta fused at base, shorter than ramus; lateral seta located about at about 65% of lateral margin. Fertilised females carrying pair of spermatophores and complex chitinous coupler adhering to dorsal surface of genitoabdomen (Figs. 13, 14A). Mean number of eggs per egg sac = 30.6 (range 26 to 37, n = 5).</p><p>Rostrum with paired lateral rostral processes (Fig. 12C).Antennule (Fig. 12C) indistinctly segmented: segmental setation pattern 9, 5, 4, 1, 13 + ae; 2 unequal setae located on antero-dorsal surface of first segment. Antenna (Fig. 12D) 3-segmented, comprising very short unarmed coxa, robust tapering basis, and unsegmented endopod forming subchela: subchela bearing claw at a right angle to proximal swollen part. Mandible (Fig. 12E) stylet-like, bearing row of 5 minute, marginal teeth subapically. Maxillule bilobed (Fig. 12F): inner lobe armed with 2 short setae and outer lobe with 2 longer setae. Maxilla (Fig. 12G) subchelate: coxobasis armed with single inner seta proximally on basal part; subchela comprising long segment armed with slender seta at inner extremity and distal claw with minute seta and bifid tip.</p><p>Swimming legs 1 and 2 biramous; members of each leg pair joined by slender interpodal bars (Figs. 1A, 12H). Leg 1 (Fig. 12I) with fused sympod armed with outer and inner setae: exopod indistinctly 2-segmented and slightly curved; proximal segment bearing outer distal spine; distal segment bearing 3 setae on apical margin and 1 short seta distally on inner margin: endopod unsegmented; lacking seta on proximal part; distal part armed with 2 apical setae, inner slightly longer than outer, plus minute setal vestige at inner distal corner. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 5 on sympod, and 2 each on exopodal segments 1 and 2, and 3 on endopod. Leg 2 (Fig. 12J) with fused sympod armed with outer seta: exopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment long, bearing slightly curved outer distal spine; distal segment bearing 1 long seta on apex and 1 short seta either side: endopod unsegmented; lacking seta on proximal part; distal part armed with 1 short outer seta and 1 long inner seta on distal margin. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 2 on sympod, 3 on first exopodal segment and 2 on second, and 3 on endopod. Leg 3 located dorsolaterally on trunk at about 50% of length (Fig. 12A), represented by two setae originating directly on trunk surface. Leg 4 located dorsolaterally on trunk at about 80% of length (Fig. 12A), represented by single seta originating directly on trunk surface.</p><p>Description of male.</p><p>Total body length excluding caudal rami 343 μm. Body (Fig. 14B) slightly dorsoventrally depressed, comprising anterior cephalothorax and long trunk tapering posteriorly into incorporated urosome. Cephalothorax ovoid in shape, about 1.4 times wider than long (86 x 122 μm). Dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by m-shaped subsurface chitinous frame. Trunk about 3.0 times longer than wide (260 x 86 μm); anteriorly trunk with first two pedigerous somites weakly defined by indentations; greatest width of trunk just posterior to level of insertion of third legs; tapering posteriorly to level of genital apertures. Genital apertures located ventrally (Fig. 14C); genital opercula each armed with single seta. Abdomen undivided, tapering slightly towards rear margin. Caudal rami elongate, about 2.8 times longer than wide; armed with 5 naked setae of different lengths; primary seta fused to ramus and just longer than ramus; lateral seta located at about 43% of lateral margin.</p><p>Rostrum with transverse posterior margin with small spinous process at each posterolateral corner and 3 pairs of rounded knobs on ventral surface; bearing well developed, paired lateral rostral processes extending to flange on posterior margin of proximal antennulary segment (Fig. 14D). Antennule (Fig. 14D) indistinctly 5-segmented: segmental setation pattern 7, 5, 4, 1, 12 + ae; proximal segment with flattened semicircular flange near distal end of posterior margin. Antenna (Figs. 14D, E) comprising unarmed coxa, robust basis and distal subchela; basis bearing tapering chitinous process distally, projecting across base of subchela; subchela consisting of proximal segment bearing 1 seta plus curved distal claw bearing digitiform process proximally on concave margin. Parabasal papilla rounded and ornamented with curved array of tooth-like denticles (arrowed in Fig. 14D). Mandible, maxillule and maxilla as in female.</p><p>Swimming legs 1 and 2 biramous; members of each leg pair joined by slender interpodal bars (Fig. 14F), each bearing 2 pairs of posteriorly directed spinous processes with rounded tips. Irregular sclerotized bar present between interpodal bars. Leg 1 (Fig. 14F) with fused sympod armed with outer and inner setae: exopod indistinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment bearing outer distal spine; distal segment bearing total of 5 setal elements around apex and inner margin: endopod 2-segmented; first segment unarmed; second segment armed with long apical seta plus shorter seta on each side. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 3 on sympod, 3 on first exopodal segment and 2 on second, plus 1 on first and 3 on second endopodal segments. Leg 2 (Fig. 14F) with fused sympod bearing outer seta; exopod unsegmented; bearing long outer spine derived from proximal segment; bearing 4 setal elements along distal and inner margins: endopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment unarmed; distal segment armed with long apical seta plus shorter seta on each side as in leg 1. Leg 2 ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 3 on sympod, 2 each on exopodal segment, plus 1 on first and 3 on second endopodal segments. Leg 3 (Fig. 14B) located dorsolaterally on trunk, represented by two setae originating on trunk surface. Leg 4 located dorsally on trunk, represented by single seta originating directly on trunk surface.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>The female of H. pholas was redescribed in modern detail by Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa (2013) who noted several differences from the original description by Wilson (1906) and from the redescription by Pillai (1968). However, they examined Wilson’s syntype material in the collections of the United States Natural History Museum and were able to confirm that their material from the Ryukyu Islands, Japan was conspecific with the types. The Australian material conforms closely to Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa’s (2013) redescription. The few minor differences include the apparent absence of the minute innermost seta on the distal margin of the endopod of leg 2 in the Australian material. This seta is present on the endopod of leg 1 in both the Australian and Japanese material but is present on leg 2 in the Japanese material only.</p><p>The male is described here for the first time. Only a single male was found and it was collected in amplexus with a female. Sexual dimorphism in H. pholas is noted in the shape of the dorsal cephalothoracic shield and its chitinous supporting frame, and in body shape. In addition, the caudal rami of the male are more elongate than those of the female and the principal caudal seta is markedly longer than the ramus in the male but shorter than the ramus in the female. The proximal segment of the antennule of the male is armed with only 7 setae (compared with 9 in the female) and has a flattened flange located distally on the posterior margin. The antenna carries a tapering process distally on the basis and the subchela is divided and armed with 2 setal elements in the male while the female lacks any process on the basis and the entire subchela forms an unarmed recurved claw. Legs 1 and 2 have a similar armature in both sexes, the main difference being the presence of 5 setae on the distal exopodal segment of leg 1 in the male compared to only 4 in the female. The major dimorphism regarding the legs is the presence of 2 pairs of posteriorly directed spinous processes on the interpodal bars of both legs in the male whereas the female lacks such processes.</p><p>Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa (2013) noted that all their females were “armed with a chitinous lamella attached to the anterior border of urosome”. A similar chitinous structure was present on the females from Australia (Fig. 13). Careful removal revealed that it consisted of a complex chitinous plate incorporating a pair of spermatophores and their spermatophore tubules (Fig. 14A). This structure is interpreted here as a coupler which is transferred together with the spermatophores onto the female during mating. It probably functions to help locate and attach the spermatophores to the female genital area in the correct position for them to discharge into the paired copulatory pores. Similar coupling structures are well known in certain calanoid copepods, such as the pontellid Labidocera aestiva Wheeler, 1900 (Blades &amp; Youngbluth, 1980), but this is the first report of such a structure in the Hatschekiidae .</p><p>The type host of H. pholas was the tetraodontid Arothron stellatus caught off Pearl Banks in Sri Lankan waters (Wilson, 1906) and it was subsequently collected off Kerala, India on the same host (Pillai, 1967). The subsequent host record, from Leiodon cutcutia (Hamilton, 1822) (as Tetraodon cutcutia) caught in Indian waters (Pillai, 1967, 1968) was considered doubtful by Uyeno &amp; Nagasawa (2013) because L. cutcutia inhabits fresh and brackish waters but no Hatschekia species has ever been reported from such reduced salinity regimes. The present record from Australian waters is also from A. stellatus which remains the only confirmed host of H. pholas .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A9519D35FFC8FF8113E5FD3C5686F86C	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Boxshall, Geoffrey A.;Bernot, James P.	Boxshall, Geoffrey A., Bernot, James P. (2025): The Hatschekiidae (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, with a key to species reported from Australian waters. Zootaxa 5716 (1): 11-65, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2
A9519D35FFC3FF8B13E5FF5150E0FC88.text	A9519D35FFC3FF8B13E5FF5150E0FC88.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hatschekia quadrata Hewitt 1969	<div><p>Hatschekia quadrata Hewitt, 1969</p><p>Material examined. 22 ♀♀ from gills of Tragulichthys jaculiferus (Cuvier, 1818) (TC17076) collected off Green Island, Moreton Bay on 13 January 2016 , QM Reg. Nos. W55140; 8 ♀♀ and 9 juveniles from gills of T. jaculiferus (TC17125) collected off Peel Island, Moreton Bay on 14 January 2016 ; 2 ♀♀ and 1 juvenile from gills of T. jaculiferus (TC17023) collected off Green Island, Moreton Bay on 12 January 2016 ; 2 ♀♀ and 1♂ from gills of T. jaculiferus (TC17409) collected off Green Island, Moreton Bay on 22 January 2016 ; 2 ♀♀ and 1 juvenile from gills of T. jaculiferus (TC17935) collected at Wynnum North, Moreton Bay on 07 July 2016 ; NHMUK Reg. Nos. 2024.265-282 .</p><p>37 ♀♀ from gills of Dicotylichthys punctulatus Kaup, 1855 (TC17008) collected off Green Island, Moreton Bay on 12 January 2016 , QM Reg. Nos. W55141; 23 ♀♀ from gills of D. punctulatus (TC17402) collected off Mud Island, Moreton Bay on 22 January 2016 ; 10 ♀♀ and 1♂ from gills of D. punctulatus (TC17693), collected off Green Island, Moreton Bay on 28 July 2016 ; 18 ♀♀ from gills of D. punctulatus (TC16940) collected off Green Island, Moreton Bay on 08 December 2016 ; 7 ♀♀ from gills of D. punctulatus (TC17751) collected off Wellington Point, Moreton Bay on 30 June 2016 ; 19 ♀♀ and 1♂ from gills of D. punctulatus (TC17322) collected in the Port of Brisbane ( South of the port) on 20 January 2016 ; NHMUK Reg. Nos. 2024.283-329 .</p><p>Supplementary description of female.</p><p>Total body length of females from Tragulichthys jaculiferus excluding caudal rami ranging from 1.38 to 2.00 mm, with a mean of 1.77 mm (n = 25). Total body length of females from Dicotylichthys punctulatus excluding caudal rami ranging from 1.71 to 2.36 mm, with a mean of 2.05 mm (n = 28). Body (Fig. 15A) dorsoventrally depressed, comprising anterior cephalothorax and long trunk bearing minute genitoabdomen posteriorly. Cephalothorax heart-shaped in outline, about 1.3 times wider than long (378 x 505 μm), with medially indented frontal margin and flattened, mid-dorsal posterior expansion. Dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by m-shaped subsurface chitinous frame. Trunk about 2.8 times longer than wide (1.39 x 0.493 mm), but ranging from 2.4 to 3.2 times longer; with greatest width about at level of insertion of third legs; tapering slightly from level of fourth legs towards posterior extremity; rear margin with rounded posterolateral angles and weak, rounded expansion dorsally in midline. Genitoabdomen (Fig. 15B) wider than long excluding caudal rami, comprising fused genital-double and abdominal somites; bearing paired genital apertures dorsally. Widest proximal part of genitoabdomen apparently telescoped within rear part of trunk. Caudal rami about 1.9 times longer than wide (26 x 14 μm); armed with 6 naked setae of different lengths; lateral seta located about at middle of lateral margin. Egg sacs linear: mean number of eggs per sac = 13.3 (range 9 to 17, n = 30) in females from T. jaculiferus compared with 18.1 (range 11 to 22, n = 22) in females from D. punctulatus .</p><p>Rostrum with concave posterior margin; lacking paired lateral rostral processes (Fig. 15C). Antennule (Fig. 15C) indistinctly 5-segmented: segmental setation pattern 10, 5, 4, 1, 12 + ae; posterior margin setae on segment 3 large and readily visible in undissected specimens.Antenna (Fig. 15C) 4-segmented, comprising very short unarmed coxa, robust tapering basis, and 2-segmented endopod forming subchela; surface of basis ornamented with minute pits; first endopodal segment armed with minute setule on knob-like process on inner margin; second endopodal segment forming curved claw armed with minute digitiform process proximally plus prominent process on midconcave margin. Mandible (Fig. 15D) stylet-like, bearing row of 5 minute, marginal teeth subapically. Maxillule bilobed (Fig. 15E): inner lobe armed with 2 short setae and outer lobe with 2 long enlarged setae. Maxilla (Fig. 15F) subchelate: coxobasis armed with single inner seta proximally on basal part; subchela comprising long segment armed with slender seta at inner extremity and distal claw with bifid tip.</p><p>Swimming legs 1 and 2 biramous; members of each leg pair joined by slender interpodal bars (Fig. 15G). Band of weakly sclerotized integument present between interpodal bars. Leg 1 (Fig. 15G) with fused sympod armed with outer and inner setae: exopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment bearing slightly curved outer distal spine; distal segment bearing 3 long setal elements around apex and 1 reduced seta on inner margin: endopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment unarmed; distal segment armed with short outer seta, 3 unequal setae around apex, and 2 reduced setae on inner margin. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 2 on sympod, and 2 each on exopodal segments 1 and 2, and endopodal segment 2. Leg 2 (Fig. 15H) with fused sympod bearing outer seta; exopod 2-segmented; with incomplete articulation between segments offset; proximal segment bearing long outer spine on extended outer distal tip of segment; distal segment bearing 2 unequal setal elements on apex and 3 reduced setae along inner margin: endopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment with inner distal seta; distal segment armed with outer seta, 3 unequal setae around apex, and 1 inner seta. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 1 on sympod, and 3 on each exopodal segment. Leg 3 located laterally on trunk at about 30% of length (Fig. 15A), represented by two setae originating directly on trunk surface. Leg 4 located laterally on trunk at about 78% of length (Fig. 15A), represented by single seta originating directly on trunk surface.</p><p>Description of male.</p><p>Total body length excluding caudal rami 0.51 mm.Body (Fig. 16A) slightly dorsoventrally depressed, comprising anterior cephalothorax and slender trunk tapering posteriorly into incorporated urosome. Cephalothorax hexagonal in shape, about as wide as long (164 x 157 μm). Dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by subsurface chitinous frame comprising anterior transverse bar and 3 longitudinal bars, median longitudinal bars with lateral extensions posteriorly aligned with medial extensions on each of lateral longitudinal bars. Trunk about 3.2 times longer than wide (348 X 108 μm); trunk with first two pedigerous somites defined by indentations anteriorly; greatest width of trunk about at level of insertion of third legs; tapering posteriorly to level of genital apertures. Genital apertures located ventrally (Fig. 16B); genital opercula each armed with single seta. Abdomen undivided, tapering slightly towards rear margin. Caudal rami elongate, about 2.8 times longer than wide (44 x 16 μm); armed with 6 naked setae of different lengths; primary seta fused to ramus and just longer than ramus; lateral seta located at about 40% of lateral margin.</p><p>Rostrum subtriangular with pointed posterior margin; lacking paired lateral rostral processes (Fig. 16C). Antennule (Fig. 16C) 5-segmented: segmental setation pattern 10, 5, 5, 1, 12 + ae; setae on segment 3 well developed but less conspicuously enlarged than in female.Antenna (Fig. 16D) comprising unarmed coxa, robust basis and distal subchela: basis bearing flattened chitinous process distally, projecting distally across base of subchela; subchela unsegmented but with incomplete transverse suture partially separating off proximal segment bearing 2 setae from recurved distal claw. Mandible as in female. Maxillule (Fig. 16E) bilobed as in female; inner lobe with 2 unequal slender setae and outer lobe with 2 long naked setae. Maxilla (Fig. 16F) as in female.</p><p>Swimming legs 1 and 2 biramous; members of each leg pair joined by slender interpodal bars (Fig. 16G). Vshaped band of weakly sclerotized integument present between interpodal bars. Leg 1 (Fig. 16G) with fused sympod armed with outer and inner setae: exopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment bearing slightly curved outer distal spine; distal segment bearing total of 6 long setal elements around apex and along inner margin: endopod unsegmented; unarmed proximally; distally armed with 5 unequal setae around apex and along inner margin. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 4 on sympod, 1 on exopodal segment 1, and 2 on endopod. Leg 2 (Fig. 16H) with fused sympod bearing outer seta; exopod 2-segmented; with articulation between segments offset; proximal segment bearing long outer spine on extended outer distal tip of segment; distal segment bearing outer spiniform element on apex and 4 long pinnate setae along distal and inner margins: endopod indistinctly 2- segmented; proximal segment with pinnate inner seta; distal segment armed with naked outer setal element plus 1 naked and 3 pinnate setae around apical and inner margins. Leg 2 ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules: 3 on sympod, 2 each on exopodal segments, and 1 on each endopodal segment. Leg 3 located laterally on trunk, represented by two setae originating on small protrusion from trunk surface (Fig. 16A, inset). Leg 4 located dorsally on trunk, represented by single seta originating directly on trunk surface.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>The original description of H. quadrata by Hewitt (1969) was based on female specimens collected in New Zealand waters from the diodontid fish Tragulichthys jaculiferus (as Allomycterus jaculiferus), and Jones (1985) subsequently noted that H. quadrata was common on this host in the Cook Strait area between North and South Island. The present account is the first record of H. quadrata from Australian waters and its discovery on a second diodontid, Dicotylichthys punctulatus, is a new host record. It was common on both of these host fishes in Moreton Bay. A difference was noted in the number of eggs per egg sac in females from the two different hosts, with a mean of 13.3 per sac in the type host compared to 18.1 in D. punctulatus .</p><p>The Australian material closely resembles the New Zealand material in gross body morphology but there are some apparent differences in the appendages. The setation of the antennule illustrated by Hewitt (1969) is missing numerous setae from the first segment and 1 or more setae from each of the other segments. The missing setae are mostly small and easily overlooked. The antenna lacks the 2 reduced elements on the inner surface of the subchela and the ornamentation of minute pits on the surface of the basis was not mentioned by Hewitt. The mandible was not described by Hewitt (1969). The maxillule, referred to by Hewitt (1969) as the mandibular palp, was described as bilobed with 1 and 3 setae on the lobes whereas, like the vast majority of Hatschekia species, two setae are present on each lobe. The setation of leg 1 is the same in both sets of material except an additional reduced proximal seta is illustrated on the inner margin of the second exopodal segment in the original description. Leg 2 has identical setation on the exopod, including the unusually long outer spine on the proximal segment, but only 3 long distal setae are shown on the endopod whereas the new Australian material carries, in addition, 1 seta on the inner margin and 1 on the outer margin of the second segment, plus an inner seta on the first segment. These few differences involve reduced setae that are difficult to observe, and the key similarities are striking, such as the outer spine of the proximal exopodal segment of leg 2 extending well beyond the tip of the ramus.</p><p>The male is described here for the first time.The male is markedly smaller than the female and sexual dimorphism is apparent in general body morphology as well as in all of the appendages with the exception of the mandible and maxilla. The cephalothorax, trunk and abdomen all differ in shape between the sexes. The antennules exhibit the same numbers of setae per segment but some setae on the proximal three segments are more robust in the female (and are conspicuous even in whole mounts), while the subterminal aesthetasc on the apical segment is larger in the male. The dimorphism displayed by the antenna is remarkable: the basis carries a large spatulate process distally on the posterior surface in the male, which is absent in the female, and the distal subchela is provided with two long setae in the male whereas only setal vestiges are present in the female. In the male the outer lobe of the bilobed maxillule is armed with two long slender setae but in the female these setae are robust (cf. Figs 15E and 16E). The most obvious sexual dimorphism in the swimming legs is the relative length of the setae on both rami: they are much better developed in the male and in leg 2 most of the setae on both rami are pinnate whereas those of the female are weakly developed and lack any ornamentation.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A9519D35FFC3FF8B13E5FF5150E0FC88	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Boxshall, Geoffrey A.;Bernot, James P.	Boxshall, Geoffrey A., Bernot, James P. (2025): The Hatschekiidae (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, with a key to species reported from Australian waters. Zootaxa 5716 (1): 11-65, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2
A9519D35FFC7FF9713E5FC4C56F4FE60.text	A9519D35FFC7FF9713E5FC4C56F4FE60.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hatschekia shari Uyeno & Ali 2013	<div><p>Hatschekia shari Uyeno &amp; Ali, 2013</p><p>Syn. Hatschekia n. sp. 15 of Justine et al., 2010b</p><p>Material examined</p><p>23 ♀♀ from gills of Lethrinus nebulosus (Forsskål, 1775) (TC17111) collected off Peel Island, Moreton Bay on 13 January 2016 , 21 ♀♀ QM Reg. Nos. W55142 , 2 ♀♀ NHMUK 2025.1459 - 1460; 6 ♀♀ from gills of Lethrinus laticaudis Alleyne &amp; MacCleay, 1877 (TC16992) collected off Green Island, Moreton Bay on 11 January 2016 , QM Reg. Nos. W55144; 10 ♀♀ from gills of L. laticaudis (TC17193) collected off Dunwich, North Stradbroke Is, Moreton Bay on 16 January 2016 ; 9 ♀♀ from gills of L. laticaudis (TC17026) collected in Moreton Bay on 12 January 2016 ; 2 ♀♀ from gills of L. laticaudis (TC17334) collected off Green Island, Moreton Bay on 12 January 2016 ; 2 ♀♀ from gills of L. laticaudis (TC17411) collected off Green Island, Moreton Bay on 22 January 2016 , NHMUK Reg. Nos. 2025.1430-1458 .</p><p>Comparative material from New Caledonia</p><p>2♀♀ from gills of L. nebulosus (JNC238) collected at <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=66.395&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-22.228167" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 66.395/lat -22.228167)">Grand Rade</a> (22° 13.69’S, 66° 23.7’E), Nouméa, New Caledonia on 04 March 2003 by Jean-Lou Justine, NHMUK Reg. Nos. 2025.1461-1462 .</p><p>Supplementary description of female</p><p>Total body length excluding caudal rami ranging from 1.39 to 1.78 mm, with a mean of 1.64 mm (n = 17). Body (Figs. 17A, 18A–C) comprising anterior cephalothorax and long cylindrical trunk bearing minute conical genitoabdomen posteriorly. Cephalothorax subrectangular with protruding frontal margin; just wider than long (210 x 220 μm), with weakly convex lateral margins. Dorsal cephalothoracic shield supported by complex m-shaped subsurface chitinous frame with median and paired lateral longitudinal bars, anterior transverse thickening along frontal margin and additional transverse bar located just posterior to frontal margin; chitinous frame contained within anterior half of dorsal cephalothoracic shield. Trunk about 5.3 times longer than wide (1.47 x 0.27 mm); with maximum width about in middle, with rounded posterolateral corners (Figs. 18A, B). Second pedigerous somite weakly defined anteriorly on trunk by constrictions in trunk (Fig. 18C). Genitoabdomen wider than long (Fig. 17B) comprising fused genital and abdominal somites; bearing paired genital apertures dorsally. Caudal rami about 1.6 times longer than wide (30 x 19 μm); armed with 6 naked setae of different lengths; lateral seta located about at middle of lateral margin. Mean number of eggs per egg sac = 26 (range 24 to 31, n = 6).</p><p>Rostrum with evenly rounded posterior margin; lacking lateral processes (Fig. 17C). Antennule (Fig. 17C) short, indistinctly 5-segmented: segmental setation pattern 10, 5, 4, 1, 11 + ae; 2 unequal setae located on antero-dorsal surface of first segment. Antenna (Fig. 17D) 3-segmented, comprising short unarmed coxa, robust tapering basis, and distal subchela: surface of basis ornamented with minute pits; subchela with swollen and thickened base plus curved distal claw. Parabasal papilla (Fig. 17D) irregularly lobate with broad base, located lateral to insertion of antenna. Mandible (Fig. 17E) stylet-like, bearing 2 marginal teeth subapically. Maxillule bilobed (Fig. 17F): both lobes armed with 2 unequal setae. Maxilla (Fig. 17G) with posteriorly-directed digitiform process on pedestal at base, coxobasis armed with single inner seta proximally; subchela comprising long segment armed with slender seta at inner extremity and distal claw with bifid tip.</p><p>Swimming legs 1 and 2 biramous; members of each leg pair joined by short slender interpodal bars (Figs. 17H, 18A). Leg 1 (Fig. 17I) with fused sympod armed with outer and inner setae: exopod distinctly 2-segmented; proximal segment with outer distal spine; distal segment bearing 3 long setal elements around apex and 2 slightly shorter setae along inner margin: endopod 2-segmented; proximal segment with inner seta; distal segment armed with 3 long setae around apex plus 1 long and 1 short seta on inner margin. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules on exopodal segments: one on first segment and two on second. Leg 2 (Fig. 17J) with fused sympod bearing outer seta; exopod 2-segmented; proximal segment longer than distal, armed with short outer spine; distal segment bearing 3 setae around apex: endopod 2-segmented; proximal segment with inner seta; distal segment armed with 3 setae around apex and 1 inner seta. Leg ornamented with curved rows of minute spinules on both rami: 2 each on exopodal segments 1 and 2 and endopodal segment 2, and 1 row on endopodal segment 1. Leg 3 located laterally on trunk at 30% of length (Fig. 17A), represented by 2 setae arising directly from trunk surface. Leg 4 located laterally on trunk at 70% of length (Fig. 17A), represented by single seta originating directly on trunk surface.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>This species was established to accommodate material collected from the gills of Lethrinus nebulosus caught off Khor Al-Ummia, Iraq, in the northwestern Arabian Gulf (Uyeno &amp; Ali, 2013). Close examination of the Australian material revealed numerous similarities with the excellent description of H. shari, and the host of H. shari in the Arabian Gulf is the same species as in Moreton Bay, on the coast of Queensland. The similarities include: the shape of the cephalothorax which is widest near the posterior margin, the complexity of the supporting chitinous frame, the elongate trunk, the tapering shape of the genitoabdomen and posterolaterally directed caudal rami, the possession of 6 caudal setae, the presence of only 2 teeth on the tip of the mandibular stylet, the presence of one broad and one slender seta on each lobe of the maxillule, and the setation of the endopod of leg 2. Despite these similarities and the shared host species, there are numerous small differences between the Australian material and H. shari as described by Uyeno &amp; Ali (2013). The most obvious differences are: the setal formula of the antennule, the presence of a posteriorly-directed digitiform process on the basal pedestal of the maxilla, and the setal formula of both rami of leg 1 and the exopod of leg 2. The setal formula of the antennule of H. shari is 9, 4, 4, 1, 13 + ae, whereas in the Australian material it was 10, 5, 4, 1, 11 + ae. The Australian material has a well defined digitiform process on the basal pedestal of the maxilla, but no process is shown by Uyeno &amp; Ali (2013) in their illustration of the maxilla on its pedestal. Leg 1 bears 6 setae on the distal exopodal segment in H. shari compared to only 5 in the Australian material, and the endopod has a 0 – 0, 6 formula compared with 0 – 1, 5 in the Australian material. The distal exopodal segment of leg 2 carries 4 setae in H. shari but only 3 in the Australian material. The setation differences in both the antennule and the legs appear minor and Kabata (1991) was of the opinion that such minor differences in leg setation patterns are unreliable as taxonomic characters in Hatschekia . The presence of this species on Lethrinus laticaudis in Moreton Bay constitutes a new host record.</p><p>The presence of the posteriorly-directed digitiform process on the pedestal at the base of the maxilla is a distinctive feature. It was not observed in H. shari by Uyeno &amp; Ali (2013) but could have been overlooked. Interestingly, a similar posteriorly-directed digitiform process on the maxilla is present in H. pagrosomi Yamaguti, 1939, according to the recent redescription by Izawa (2018). Neither the original description of H. pagrosomi by Yamaguti (1939) nor the redescription based on Australian material (Roubal et al., 1983) noted the presence of this feature, so it appears to be often overlooked. The Australian material from Moreton Bay is tentatively identified as H. shari, but comparisons also need to made between H. shari and two closely related species, H. pagrosomi and H. gracilis Yamaguti, 1954 . Hatschekia shari and H. pagrosomi share numerous character states, in particular, the elongate body of the female, the reduced semi-circular genitoabdomen bearing posterolaterally-directed caudal rami and the 2-segmented rami in legs 1 and 2 with their very similar setation formula. These two species can be readily distinguished by the extent of the subsurface chitinous frame supporting the dorsal cephalothoracic shield: in H. pagrosomi the m-shaped frame extends the entire length of the shield (Yamaguti, 1939; Izawa, 2018) whereas in H. shari the frame is more complex (including an additional transverse bar anteriorly), and the frame only extends over the anterior 50 to 60% of the length of the shield.</p><p>Hatschekia gracilis was established by Yamaguti (1954) to accommodate female specimens obtained from the gills of an unidentified species of Lethrinus caught off Macassar, Sulawesi (Indonesia). This is another elongate species, with the female very similar in shape and body proportions to H. shari and H. pagrosomi . Yamaguti’s original description was supported by only four illustrations, the dorsal view of the female, the antenna and legs 1 and 2, but he noted the unusual form of the chitinous frame supporting the dorsal cephalothoracic shield (Yamaguti, 1954). In his landmark review of the genus Hatschekia, Jones (1985) considered that the form of this chitinous frame was a unique feature. The chitinous frame of H. gracilis resembles that of H. shari in its complexity but it extends about 75% of the length of the cephalothoracic shield compared to only 50 to 60% in H. shari . It seems possible that this difference might reflect a slightly different viewing angle, and that H. shari might be a junior synonym of H. gracilis but more evidence is needed before this can be proposed.</p><p>Justine et al. (2010b) analysed the metazoan parasites present on lethrinids from New Caledonia. They reported multiple undescribed new species of Hatschekia including two species from L. nebulosus . One of these, designated Hatschekia n. sp. 15 by Justine et al. (2010b, Fig. 1G), shares the same shape of cephalothorax and exhibits a similar shape of trunk to L. shari . Examination of the original material collected from L. nebulosus in New Caledonia confirms that Hatschekia n. sp. 15 of Justine et al. (2010b) is conspecific with the Australian material identified here as H. shari . Justine et al. (2010b) also reported the presence of the same copepod on Lethrinus harak (Forsskål, 1775) but, after re-examination of their single specimen, we cannot confirm that it is H. shari .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A9519D35FFC7FF9713E5FC4C56F4FE60	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Boxshall, Geoffrey A.;Bernot, James P.	Boxshall, Geoffrey A., Bernot, James P. (2025): The Hatschekiidae (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, with a key to species reported from Australian waters. Zootaxa 5716 (1): 11-65, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5716.1.2
