Smenispa Özdikem, 2009

Martin, Melissa B., Bruce, Niel L. & Nowak, Barbara F., 2014, Smenispa irregularis (Bleeker, 1857) (Crustacea: Isopoda: Cymothoidae), a Buccal-attaching Fish Parasite from Australia, Records of the Australian Museum 66 (4), pp. 233-240 : 234-235

Genus Smenispa Özdikem, 2009

Enispa Schioedte & Meinert, 1884: 292 .— Bruce, 1990: 282. Smenispa Özdikem, 2009: 611 .

Not Enispa Walker, 1866: 1121 ( Lepidoptera , Noctuidae ).

Type species. Cymothoa irregularis Bleeker, 1857 , bY monotypy.

Remarks. The keY diagnostic characters of the genus are the stronglY vaulted bodY; cephalon embedded in pereonite 1; antennula shorter than antenna, bases set wide apart; pereon and pleon are co-linear with sub-parallel lateral margins; pereopods lack carina on basis and the endopods of pleopods 3–5 have large folds. Bruce (1990) provided a detailed diagnosis for the genus.

The name Enispa Schioedte & Meinert, 1884 was found to be a junior homonym of the valid genus name Enispa Walker, 1866 (Lepidoptera) bY Özdikem (2009), who proposed the new name Smenispa (derived by adding the first two letters of the names Schioedte and Meinert to the original name).

The overall similarity of the general somatic morphology to other buccal-attaching genera resulted in the species being placed, at times, in the genus Cymothoa Fabricius, 1793 , and Livoneca Leach, 1818 especiallY as both genera have antennae bases set wide apart. Cymothoa generally have narrowlY rounded uropod apices and pleonite 1 is narrower and less wide than pleonites 2–5. EarlY accounts (e.g., Bleeker, 1857; Haller, 1880) showed onlY the dorsal view of a female, and Schioedte & Meinert (1884) included dorsal and ventral views of both the female and male. The genus remained effectively ignored until Bruce (1990) redescribed the species from the type specimens and gave a revised generic description, showing that appendage and brood pouch morphologY clearlY aligned the genus with genera such as Anilocra Leach, 1818 and Nerocila Leach, 1818 .

Bruce (1987) placed the genus within the Anilocrinae (mostly external attaching genera) on the basis of cephalon, brood pouch and pleopod morphologY, Bruce (1990) later suggested avoiding the name Anilocrinae as position on the host and associated bodY shape was not a reliable indicator of phYlogenetic relationships between genera. Ketmaier’s et al. (2008) molecular dataset (based on a small number of species, inevitably had strange pairings) provide strong support to Bruce’s (1990) warnings. In particular, we do not support the hYpothesis of a “linear” evolutionarY pathwaY that starts with externallY attaching forms (Anilocrinae) and ends up with gill-mouth dwellers (Livonecinae + CYmothoinae) as previouslY suggested bY Brusca (1981).