identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03B3C97FFFB3343DB6B7FD352529FB6C.text	03B3C97FFFB3343DB6B7FD352529FB6C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Clavellotis dubius Castro Romero, Montes, Otkener & Campos 2025	<div><p>Clavellotis dubius Castro Romero, Montes, Ӧtkener &amp; Campos sp. nov.</p><p>Figs. 1–4</p><p>Host: Chromis crusma (Valenciennes, 1833)</p><p>Site of infection: gills arcs</p><p>Type Locality: Antofagasta, Chile South Pacific . 23°38'39 S; 70°24'39 W</p><p>Prevalence and mean intensity: 10.24% (13/128); 1.0</p><p>Type Material: deposited in the Natural History Museum, Santiago Chile, Holotype female MNHNCL No Cop-15160, Paratypes females: MNHNCL Cop: 15161, Cop-15162, Allotype MNHNCL Cop15163 .</p><p>Etymology: the specific name dubius refers to the doubts that arose by the identity of specimens of Clavellotis confused with some Clavella species.</p><p>Description of females: Measurements based on 3 female specimens in micrometers. Cephalothorax elongate (Fig. 1A), oblong, with basal process (length 2,197 [1,974 –2,308], width 308 [282–333]). Trunk (length 1,650 [1,308 –1,846], width 829 [744–974]), perpendicular to cephalothorax (Fig. 1A). Trunk oblong, short genital process (length 256 [266–256], width 154 [103–205]). Egg sacs: length 1,731 (1,410 –2,051), width 475 (436–513). Maxilla (Fig. 1B) median size (length 940 [897–974], width 221 [120–280]), rami separated. Bulla short, cup shaped. Excretory duct short, at maxilla base. Antennule (Fig. 1C) 4-segmented. Basal segment wide. The second segment with whip. Distal segment armed with: elements 1, 3; digitiform seta 4; bifid seta 5; seta 6. Elements 1, 3 wide at base, tapering distally, like tubercles. Antenna (Fig. 1D) biramous. Sympod as long as exopod. Exopod globose, longer than endopod, with 5 tiny spinules on dorsal margin. Endopod bi-segmented, with strong spiniform process (1), setae 2, 3, and ventral pad of 3 spinules. Labrum (Fig. 1E) subtriangular, with 9 apical setae. Maxillule (Fig. 2A) bilobate. Endite: 2 papillae, each with long seta of equal length, plus short dorsal seta. Palp short, lateral, with papilla bearing 2 setae. No additional armature. Mandible (Fig. 2B) dental formula: P1, P1S1, P1S1, B5 (3 well-developed, 2 short basal teeth). Maxilliped (Fig. 2C) corpus strong, with a single spine in myxal area. Shaft with a short spine on basal third laterally. Claw slightly curved (Fig. 2D), ventral barb extending beyond half-claw length. Base near barb with: 3 short spines. No additional armature.</p><p>Description of male: Clavellotis -like (Fig. 3A). Body short, subcircular. Genital process lobe-shaped, below maxilliped. Antennule (Fig. 3B) uniramous, 3-segmented. The second segment is the longest. No whip or solus. Apical armature:elements 1, 2, 3; seta 4, 6; 5(bifid seta). Antenna (Fig. 3C) biramous. Endopod longer than exopod. Endopod bi-segmented, distal segment with strong curved process; ventral surface with medial spiniform process, rows of spinules. Exopod globose, lacking armature.</p><p>Labrum (Fig. 3D) subtriangular, with rostral seta + 8 surrounding setae. Mandible not detected. Maxillule (Fig. 3E) bilobated. Endite: 2 papillae, each with 1 seta of equal size and 1 small dorsal seta. Palp: short ventral lobe, 2 unequally long setae.</p><p>Maxilla (Fig. 4A) with strong base, rounded inner margin, distal flange receiving slightly curved claw. Maxilliped (Fig. 4B, C) basal segment rectangular, with pectinate plate (4 teeth) on distal outer margin. Distal segment operculum-like, short inner margin process.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>The type species of the genus, C. dilatata, is characterized by an aliform process at the base of the cephalothorax, clearly separated from it, and by a short, nipple-like structure (excretory duct) at the base of the maxilla. These features confer a distinctive shape to this region. The present specimens cannot be considered conspecific with those species that have a subcircular trunk and a short maxilla, such as C. briani, C. branchiostegui, C. dilatata, and C. tarakihi Additionally, C. bilobata must also be excluded, as it possesses a bilobed subcircular trunk. The species that should be compared with the present specimens are C. characis, C. fallax, C. pagri, C. sargi, C. strumosa, and C. sebastidis .</p><p>In C. characis, the aliform process is suborbicular, whereas in C. dubius sp. nov., it is elongated. The exopod of the antenna in C. characis is densely spinulated along the dorsal margin, with three additional spinules on the lateral surface, while in C. dubius sp. nov., there are at least five spinules.</p><p>Clavellotis fallax differs from the present specimens by having a more elongated maxilla, whereas in C. dubius sp. nov., it is shorter. Additionally, the aliform process in C. fallax is globose and blunt, whereas in C. dubius sp. nov., it is distally narrower. The maxillule in C. fallax has a palp with two setae of different lengths, whereas in the present specimens, these setae are of approximately equal size. Furthermore, the maxilliped in C. fallax has a row of denticles on the ventral margin of the claw, whereas in C. dubius sp. nov., there are only three denticles.</p><p>In C. pagri, the genital process is very reduced and narrow, while in C. dubius sp. nov., it is slightly longer and wider. The aliform process in C. dubius sp. nov. is elongated, whereas in C. pagri, it is globose. The maxilla in C. pagri is short, whereas in C. dubius sp. nov., it is long. The exopod of the antenna in C. pagri is longer than the endopod and densely spinulated, whereas in C. dubius sp. nov., it is slightly longer but has fewer spinules. Additionally, in C. pagri, the maxillule has a palp with two setae of unequal length and a densely spinulated base, whereas in C. dubius sp. nov., the setae are of equal length and lack additional armature.</p><p>The present specimens differ from C. sargi in that the antennules have elements 1 and 3 well developed and subtriangular, whereas in C. sargi, these elements are reduced (element 1) or absent (element 3). The maxillule palp in C. sargi has setae of different lengths, whereas in the present specimens, the setae are of equal length. Additionally, C. sargi has a well-developed genital process, whereas in the present specimens, it is short.</p><p>Clavellotis strumosa shares the general trunk shape with C. dubius sp. nov., but they differ in the aliform projection, which in C. strumosa has a distal constriction, giving the appearance of an annexed suborbicular structure. This type of projection is also found in C. briani, but not in the present specimens. Additionally, C. strumosa has a densely spinulated pad on the exopod of the antenna, whereas in the present specimens, there are only five spinules.</p><p>The most notable difference with C. sebastidis is the maxilla, which is long in C. sebastidis, whereas in C. dubius sp. nov., it is of medium size. The aliform process in C. sebastidis is suborbicular, whereas in C. dubius sp. nov., it is elongated. The exopod of the antenna in C. sebastidis is densely spinulated along the dorsal margin, whereas in C. dubius sp. nov., it has only five spinules. Additionally, C. sebastidis has a maxillule palp with two setae of unequal length, whereas in C. dubius sp. nov., the setae are of equal length. The maxilliped of C. sebastidis has a row of spinules on the ventral margin of the shaft, whereas in C. dubius sp. nov., there are only three spinules located on the distal lateral margin near the base of the annexed barb. These morphological differences support the conclusion that the present specimens represent a new species, described herein.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B3C97FFFB3343DB6B7FD352529FB6C	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	Romero, Raul Castro;Montes, Martin M.;Ӧtkener, Ahmet;Shimabukuro, Marina Ibañez;Theiller, Mariela;Campos, Leonardo	Romero, Raul Castro, Montes, Martin M., Ӧtkener, Ahmet, Shimabukuro, Marina Ibañez, Theiller, Mariela, Campos, Leonardo (2025): Two new species of Clavellotis (Copepoda: Lernaeopodidae) with an approach to the phylogeny of the genus and its relationships inside the Clavella-Branch. Zootaxa 5679 (2): 217-242, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5679.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5679.2.3
03B3C97FFFBF3439B6B7FADC258DFA8E.text	03B3C97FFFBF3439B6B7FADC258DFA8E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Clavellotis girellae Castro Romero, Montes, Otkener & Campos 2025	<div><p>Clavellotis girellae Castro Romero, Montes, Ӧtkener &amp; Campos sp. nov.</p><p>Figs. 5–7</p><p>Host: Girella laevifrons (Tschudi)</p><p>Site of infection: branchial arches,</p><p>Type Locality: Antofagasta (Chile), 23°38'39 S and 70°24'39 W</p><p>Prevalence and Mean intensity 19.4% (7/36), 1.0</p><p>Type material deposited in the Natural History Museum MNHN, Santiago Chile, Holotype female MNHN Cop 15164, Paratypes females MNHNCL Cop 15165, Cop- 115166</p><p>Etymology: The specific name girellae, refers to the host generic name Girella laevifrons .</p><p>Female Description: Measurements based on 10 female specimens in micrometers. Cephalothorax (length 1,631 [1,513 –1,923], width 368 [282–436]) longer than trunk (length 1,102 [795–1,282], width 1,085 [641–1,461]); slightly curved. Elongated swelling at its base (aliform process), nipple-like projection; oriented anteriorly in line with the swelling. Head wide; well-developed dorsal shield. (Lateral view, Fig. 1A: trunk suborbicular; genital process short, blunt.) Ovigerous females (Fig. 5A) exhibit a trunk with a wider genital process (length 237 [103– 333], width 213 [128–256]). Egg sac, length 1,667 [1,333 –2,491], width 513 [512–561] (from three specimens). Antennules (Fig. 5B): uniramous, four-segmented; basal segment longer than the others; whip on second segment; solus absent; distal armature (Fig. 5C) comprises element 1, 2, 3 (few developed)(and digitiform setae 4, 5 (bifid) and 6. Antenna (Fig. 5D): biramous; basipodite long (approximately three times the exopod length); exopod equipped with 9 spinules on the dorsal margin and 3 on the lateral surface; endopod bi-segmented, armed with three distal spines (spine 1 shorter than the others). Mandible (Fig. 5E): with secondary dentition; dental formula: P1 S1, P1 S1, P1 S1, B3, plus very short basal teeth; first primary tooth very small. Maxillule (Fig. 5F): bilobate; endite forming a lobe armed with a papilla, each bearing a seta of similar length; palp laterally located, with two setae (one slightly longer than the other), lacking additional armature. Maxilla (Fig. 5A): median size; length 530 [385–641], width 175 [128–256]; biramous with fused rami; bulla cup-shaped. Maxilliped (Fig. 6A): strong corpus; myxal area with one spiniform process; shaft slightly curved medially, with one seta on the basal third of the lateral surface; claw curved, with an annexed barb at the ventral base, reaching half the claw length.</p><p>Male Description: Cephalothorax and trunk fused (Fig. 7A); body shape distinct from typical Clavellotis; subtriangular outline; pronounced globose mid-dorsal area; genital process subtriangular, near the maxilliped. Antennules (Fig. 7B): uniramous, four-segmented; whip on second segment; distal armature with short elemenst (labeled 1, 3, 2), digitiform process 4, and bifid seta 5. Antenna (Fig. 7C): biramous; endopod longer than the exopod; endopod armed with a spine, a seta, and a pad of spinules on the distal surface; exopod with a dorsal spine and another on the distal border; spinules on the distolateral surface. Mandible (Fig. 7D): with three primary, two secondary teeth, and five basal elements (P1, P1, S1, P1, S1, 5B). Maxillule (Fig. 7E): ventrally located; endite with two papillae, each bearing a seta of equal length; palp laterally located with two unequal setae (the longer about twice the length of the shorter). Maxilla (Fig. 7F): base elongated (suboval), bearing a short, strongly curved claw distally. Maxilliped (Fig. 7G): corpus subrectangular; distal segment almost flat, not curved, and blunt.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>Clavellotis girellae sp. nov. can be separared from species bearing an elongated trunk—such as C. dubius sp. nov., C. characis, C. fallax, C. pagri, C. sargi, C. strumosa, and C. sebastidis —as well as from those species bearing a bilobated trunk (e.g., C. bilobata). Instead, species with a subcircular trunk (namely, C. branchiostegui, C. dilatata, C. briani, and C. tarakihi) must be distinguished based on several morphological features. For instance, C. branchiostegui has a medium-sized maxilla, whereas in the present species ( C. girellae sp. nov.) the maxilla is very short; they also differ in the length of the genital process, and notably, the male of C. girellae sp. nov. exhibits a globose dorsal projection that is absent in C. branchiostegui . In addition, C. briani possesses a long genital process and a long maxilla—characterized by an elongated form with a distal constriction that gives it a distinct appearance—whereas in C. girellae sp. nov. both the genital process and the maxilla are short and simple.Although the present specimens show considerable similarity to C. dilatata in terms of trunk shape, genital process, and cephalothorax disposition, the females display some differences compared to that species. Moreover, the antenna in C. dilatata bears an exopod with 10 spinules on its distal outer margin, while in C. girellae sp. nov. the exopod has nine spinules on its dorsal margin plus three additional spinules laterally. The endopod of C. dilatata has three elements of approximately equal size, whereas in C. girellae sp. nov. one element is notably shorter than the others. The maxillule of C. dilatata is distinguished by the presence of a row of spinules on the outer surface of the palp, a feature that is absent in C. girellae sp. nov. Similarly, the antennule in C. dilatata bears only tubercles 1 and 3, while in C. girellae sp. nov. it bears tubercles 1, 2, and 3. The maxilliped also differs between the two, as only C. dilatata has spinules on the ventral distal surface of the shaft. Furthermore, the male morphology of C. girellae sp. nov. is distinct from that of C. dilatata: the trunk in C. girellae sp. nov. exhibits a subcircular mid-dorsal prominence that is globose, appearing more subtriangular rather than the more suborbicular form observed in C. dilatata, and its maxilliped bears the distal segment without dentition, in contrast to the claw-like, denticulated distal segment found in C. dilatata . Although both species may appear very similar at first glance, these subtle morphological differences, combined with the observed molecular divergence, support the recognition of a new species that is very closely related to the type species of the genus.</p><p>In addition, C. tarakihi bears a very short genital process, whereas in C. girellae sp. nov. the genital process is of medium size. Moreover, in C. tarakihi the maxillule bears a palp with two setae—one short and the other very long—accompanied by a row of spinules on the posterolateral surface, while in C. girellae sp. nov. both setae on the palp are of equal size, lacking any additional armature. The mandible in C. tarakihi, as originally described, lacks secondary teeth, whereas C. girellae sp. nov. exhibits three secondary teeth. Finally, the male of C. tarakihi displays a normal dorsal surface, whereas in C. girellae sp. nov. a distinct globose projection is present.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B3C97FFFBF3439B6B7FADC258DFA8E	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	Romero, Raul Castro;Montes, Martin M.;Ӧtkener, Ahmet;Shimabukuro, Marina Ibañez;Theiller, Mariela;Campos, Leonardo	Romero, Raul Castro, Montes, Martin M., Ӧtkener, Ahmet, Shimabukuro, Marina Ibañez, Theiller, Mariela, Campos, Leonardo (2025): Two new species of Clavellotis (Copepoda: Lernaeopodidae) with an approach to the phylogeny of the genus and its relationships inside the Clavella-Branch. Zootaxa 5679 (2): 217-242, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5679.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5679.2.3
03B3C97FFFBA343BB6B7F9372091F861.text	03B3C97FFFBA343BB6B7F9372091F861.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Clavella Oken 1815	<div><p>Consideration of Clavella - Branch phylogeny</p><p>When Kabata (1979) proposed his phylogenetic tree of Lernaeopodidae based on morphology, he established its main branches: Salmincola branch, Charopinus Branch, Brachiella Branch, Lernaepoda branch, and Clavella Branch.</p><p>For Clavella branch, he defined several sub-branches. The first sub-branch (A) included Clavellisa Wilson, C. B. 1915, Euclavellisa Heegaard, 1940, Clavellopsis Wilson, C. B. 1915, and Clavellodes Wilson, C.B. 1915 . On the opposite side, sub-branch (B) comprised Clavella Oken, 1815 —a diverse genus—along with sub-branch (C), which included Anaclavella Heegaard, 1940 and Clavellominus Kabata, 1969. More distally, sub-branch (D) emerged, containing Proclavellodes Kabata, 1967, Alella, Leigh-Sharpe, 1925, and Kabatazu s Özdikmen, 2008 (formerly Advena; Kabata 1979). Kabata also positioned Clavellistes within sub-branch (B) alongside Clavella . At that time, Clavella branch consisted of 11 Genera. Since then, several new genera have been described within this branch, including Nudiclavella Ho, 1975 (whose status remains uncertain according to Kabata 1979), Mixtio Kabata, 1990, Pseudomixtio Kabata, 1990, and Clavellotis Castro &amp; Baeza 1984 (following the transfer of some species from Clavellopsis to Clavellotis by Kabata 1990). More recently, Maxiclavella and Praeclavella, were separated from C lavella (Castro et al., 2022). Further taxonomic revisions are likely as suggested in the present study, particularly regarding species such as C. stellata, whose classification requires verification, along with the true placement of Kabatazus (= Advena) within the Clavella branch.</p><p>A partial molecular analysis using representatives of this branch, based primarily on COI and 28s genes, provides insight into their phylogenetic relationships. Although COI is not strictly used for phylogenetic reconstruction, it has been employed in similar cases (Sebone and Dippenaar 2024), and in other arthropods, such as Orthopteran (Lü et al., 2012) to infer evolutionary relationships. In this study, molecular data support Clavellisa as a basal taxon relative to Clavella, which is also consistent with morphological traits. Clavellisa retains a biramous second antenna and a mandible with secondary dentition, whereas Clavella exhibits a uniramous antenna (or at least a highly reduced exopod) and a mandible with primary dentition, though some species may bear a single secondary tooth). This confirms the evolutionary placement of Clavellisa and its relationship with other genera analyzed at the time. However, the phylogenetic positions of other genera in sub-branch (A) alongside Clavellisa may require reassessment due to notable morphological differences, particularly in body structure (e.g. cephalothorax versus trunk orientation) and mandibular dentition.</p><p>The present study also supports a clade containing Clavellotis and Alella, though the latter's placement may not align with Kabata’s (1979) classification, given differences in maxilla development and primary dentition. Additionally, the results suggest a close relationship between Clavella and Maxiclavella (Castro et al., 2022), while Praeclavella (Castro et al., 2022) appears to have diverged before the diversification of Clavella .</p><p>Overall, these findings indicate that new phylogenetic relationships may emerge among the genera currently assigned to the Clavella branch, leading to potential taxonomic reassignments and descriptions of new genera (e.g., Castro et al., in litteris).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B3C97FFFBA343BB6B7F9372091F861	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	Romero, Raul Castro;Montes, Martin M.;Ӧtkener, Ahmet;Shimabukuro, Marina Ibañez;Theiller, Mariela;Campos, Leonardo	Romero, Raul Castro, Montes, Martin M., Ӧtkener, Ahmet, Shimabukuro, Marina Ibañez, Theiller, Mariela, Campos, Leonardo (2025): Two new species of Clavellotis (Copepoda: Lernaeopodidae) with an approach to the phylogeny of the genus and its relationships inside the Clavella-Branch. Zootaxa 5679 (2): 217-242, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5679.2.3, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5679.2.3
