Search

Lanceola sphaerica Vinogradov, 1970 Lanceola clausi var. sphaerica Vinogradov 1957: 196, fig. 6. Lanceola sphaerica Vinogradov, 1970: 383, 386���388, figs 1���2.��� Vinogradov et al. 1982 / 1996: 73���75 /84���86, fig. 20.���Zeidler 2009: 44���45, fig. 13.��� Zeidler 2019: 514. Material examined. Southern Ocean: immature female (USNM 1090248), Amundsen Sea, Cruise 11, station 930 [70��08���S 109��48���W], 1,391 m, 19 January 1964 (figured here). SE Pacific: immature female (USNM 1089971), off Chilean coast near Valdivia, Cruise 6, station 326 [38��19���S 74��34���W], 1,691���2,072 m, 25 November 1962. Type material. Lanceola sphaerica was first described as a variety of L. clausi from two damaged specimens, a mature female (8 mm) and a male (9 mm), both caught in the Kurile-Kamchatka region of the North-West Pacific. The female from Vityaz station 2076 [43��39���N 149��24���E], 4,200 ���7,800 m, 9 May 1953 and the male from Vityaz station 2208 [49��23���N 158��45���E], 0���6,500 m, 22 June 1953 (Vinogradov 1957). Later, Vinogradov (1970) established it as a full species with the availability of a well-preserved male (5.5 mm) from the same general area; Vityaz station 5626 [45��11���N 152��28���E], 3,000 ���4,000 m, 23���24 August 1966. All three specimens are in the Zoological Museum of the Moscow State University (Mb���1051, 1052, 1053). Description of immature female 4.5 mm (Fig. 3). Pereonites 1���4 inflated, almost spherical. Head without rostrum. Eyes very small, reniform, without crystalline cones. A1 slightly longer than head and first pereonite combined. A2 as long as A1 with two long setae terminally. G1; basis relatively slender, slightly shorter than remaining articles combined; carpus length 0.5 x basis, distal margin width about 1.3 x proximal margin of propodus; propodus conical-shaped, length about 2 x proximal width; dactylus length almost 0.5 x propodus. G2 much longer and slenderer than G1; basis length about 0.7 x remaining articles combined, about 2 x carpus length; propodus gradually tapering to narrow distal margin, length about 1.4 x carpus; dactylus inserted terminally to propodus, length about 0.4 x propodus. P3 and P4 similar in length and morphology; basis length slightly more than 2 x merus; merus with distinct antero-distal bulge, maximum width about 0.8 x length; carpus length 1.6 x merus for P3, 1.8 x merus for P4; propodus length 1.3 x carpus for P3, 1.1 x carpus for P4; dactylus length slightly more than 0.3 x propodus. P5���7 all with relatively long, slender articles and fully retractile, hooded dactyls but propodus not club-like distally. P5 slightly shorter than P4; basis length almost 2 x merus; carpus length 1.3 x merus, 0.8 x propodus; dactylus in relatively broad hollow. P6 length almost 1.3 x P5, slightly longer than first four pereonites combined; basis length about 2 x merus; merus with very slight postero-distal bulge; carpus length 1.5 x merus; propodus length about 1.4 x merus; dactylus strongly curved, pressed against anterior margin of propodus. P7 length 0.7 x P6; basis length 2.5 x merus; merus with slight postero-distal bulge; carpus length 1.2 x merus, about 0.6 x propodus. Urosome with relatively slender peduncles and rami. Rami of all uropoda more or less sub-equal in length, with slightly serrated margins. Peduncles and rami of U1 & U2 similar in length. Peduncle length of U3 slightly less than rami. Telson acute, apex rounded; length about 1.5 x width at base, reaching to about the middle of peduncle of U3. Remarks. Lanceola sphaerica is distinguished from all its congeners by a combination of several characters; i) the inflated pereon (especially in females); ii) the relatively long dactyls of P3���7 (especially P 3���4 in mature males); iii) the structure of P5 becoming sub-chelate in males; and iv) the relatively short telson. It is clearly most similar to the highly variable species, L. clausi, in the general habitus and the relative lengths of the pereopods but is readily distinguished by the slightly more inflated pereon and the relatively longer dactyls of P3���7. The female specimen described here is similar to L. clausi pirloti Shoemaker, 1945 in that the antennae are of similar length and the merus of P3���4 has a distinct antero-distal bulge, but differs from it in that the basis of the gnathopoda is slender; P6 is relatively longer and the uropoda are slenderer. In the long dactyls of P3 and P4, it resembles L. longidactyla Vinogradov, 1964 but in that species the dactyls are relatively much longer and P5 is not modified. It also resembles L. chelifera Vinogradov, 1970, especially in the modification of P5 but in that species the dactylus of P5 is not retractile or hooded and the structure of P3 and P4 is completely different. As noted by Vinogradov (1970), females of L. sphaerica differ from males in the following characters: i) P3 and P4 are more weakly armed and the dactyls are relatively shorter; ii) the articles of P5 are more linear, with less armature and the propodus is not robust and the dactylus is not as strong, not becoming sub-chelate. The specimen described here agrees with these characters and there are only very minor differences in the relative lengths of articles that can be determined from the limited information provided for the female by Vinogradov (1957, 1970). The sexual dimorphism exhibited in the morphology of P5 seems to become more prominent in mature males. Like L. clausi, L. sphaerica seems to occur in the colder waters of both Hemispheres. Distribution. Known only from the Kurile-Kamchatka region of the Pacific Ocean, the Amundsen Sea, Antarctica and the South-East Pacific, as detailed above. The latter is a new distribution record for L. sphaerica. Vinogradov (1970) records it as ���one of the most deeply-living hyperiids, being restricted to the abyssopelagic zone (including the trench waters) and does not rise above 3,000 m into the bathypelagic���, based on the specimens from the Kurile-Kamchatka region. It is recorded here from 1,391 m and 1,691 ���2,072 m., Published as part of Zeidler, Wolfgang, 2021, Redescription of two rare, deep-sea species of hyperiidean amphipod, Lanceola loveni antarctica Vinogradov, 1962 and L. sphaerica Vinogradov, 1970 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Lanceolidae), pp. 106-114 in Zootaxa 5067 (1) on pages 111-113, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5067.1.6, http://zenodo.org/record/5656569, {"references":["Vinogradov, M. E. (1970) New data on the amphipods Hyperiidea Physosomata of the northwest part of the Pacific. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR, 86, 382 - 400. [in Russian; English translation: In: Bogorov, V. G. (Ed.), Fauna of the Kurile-Kamchatka Trench and its Environmen. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, pp. 398 - 418 (1972)]","Vinogradov, M. E. (1957) Hyperiids (Amphipoda) of the Northwest Pacific Ocean. 1. Tribe Hyperiidea Physosomata. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR, 20, 186 - 227. [in Russian; English translation: Marine Biology. Vol. 20. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington D. C., pp. 149 - 184 (1959)]","Vinogradov, M. E., Volkov, A. F. & Semenova, T. N. (1982) Amfipody-Giperiidy (Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) Mirovogo Okeanea. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, No. 132. Leningrad, 492 pp. [in Russian]","Vinogradov, M. E., Volkov, A. F. & Semenova, T. N. (1996) Hyperiid Amphipods (Amphipoda, Hyperiidea) of the World Oceans. Smithsonian Institution Libraries, D. Siegel-Causey, Scientific Editor, Washington D. C. and Oxonian Press Pvy. Ltd., New Delhi, 632 pp. [English translation from 1982 Russian original]","Zeidler, W. (2019) New and additional records of hyperiidean amphipods of the Infraorder Physosomata (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) from the Antarctic Zone of the Southern Ocean. Zootaxa, 4576 (3), 510 - 520. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4576.3.5","Shoemaker, C. R. (1945) The Amphipoda of the Bermuda Oceanographic Expeditions, 1929 - 1931. Zoologica, New York, 30 (4), 185 - 266. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / p. 210854","Vinogradov, M. E. (1964) Hyperiidea Physosomata from the northern part of the Indian Ocean. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR, 65, 107 - 151. [in Russian]"]}

Lanceola loveni grossipes Shoemaker (Fig. 1C, D) Lanceola loveni grossipes Shoemaker, 1945: 209, fig. 16 g, h. Vinogradov 1957: 191; 1960a: 206. Vinogradov et al. 1982: 63–64, fig. 12. Type material. Shoemaker (1945) described this variety from eight specimens collected near Bermuda, at depths between 600 and 1000 fathoms. He states that “the length of the type female is 29 mm ”. The USNM has three female specimens, the type (109450) and two paratypes (109451 & 2). The whereabouts of the other five specimens is unknown. Material examined. Types. Holotype female (USNM 109450) and two paratype females (USNM 109451 & 2) from the North Atlantic, near Bermuda [32º12’N 52º36’W]; William Beebe Oceanographic Expedition, col. 7 Sept. 1931, 22 Jun. 1929 & 30 Jun. 1930 respectively: in spirit. Other material examined. Female 25 mm, semi-mature (SAMA C6252), N. E. Pacific, off Alexander Archipelago, British Columbia [53º59’N 138º46.12’W]; ex M. Galbraith, 250– 150m, 26 Sept. 2001. Diagnosis. Like typical form except for the following. Length of sexually mature females 27–30 mm. Pereopod 6 is relatively longer with propodus expanded distally into rounded club-shape, housing retractile dactylus. Pereopod 7 is slightly shorter than half-length P6. Remarks. Described as a mere variety of L. loveni by Shoemaker (1945) it was elevated to sub-specific rank by Vinogradov et al. (1982) and according to them the features characteristic of L. loveni grossipes are only exhibited by sexually mature females. Distribution. This subspecies has been recorded from the North Atlantic, near Bermuda [32º12’N 52º36’W] by Shoemaker (1945); the North–west Pacific, S.E. of Japan [30º52’N 153º16’E & 30º53’N 153º09’E] by Vinogradov (1957 & 1960a) and N.E. of Marshall Is [16º08’N 173º10’E] by Vinogradov (1960a). The SAMA specimen (Fig. 1) is the first record from the North-east Pacific., Published as part of Zeidler, Wolfgang, 2009, A review of the hyperiidean amphipod superfamily Lanceoloidea Bowman & Gruner, 1973 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea), pp. 1-117 in Zootaxa 2000 on page 16, {"references":["Shoemaker, C. R. (1945) The Amphipoda of the Bermuda Oceanographic Expeditions, 1929 - 1931. Zoologica, New York, 30, 185 - 266.","Vinogradov, M. E. (1957) Hyperiids (Amphipoda) of the Northwest Pacific Ocean. 1. Tribe Hyperiidea Physosomata. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 20: 186 - 227. [In Russian]. English translation by American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington D. C., 1959, Marine Biology, 149 - 184.","Vinogradov, M. E. (1960 a) Hyperiidea Physosomata of the Tropical Pacific Ocean. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 41, 198 - 247. [In Russian].","Vinogradov, M. E., Volkov, A. F. & Semenova, T. N. (1982) Amfipody-Giperiidy (Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) Mirovogo Okeanea. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR No. 132. Leningrad, 492 pp. [In Russian]. English translation, 1996, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington D. C., D. Siegel-Causey, Scientific Editor."]}

Willea truncata (G.M. Smith) D.M. John, M.J. Wynne & P. Tsarenko, comb. nov. Basionym: Crucigenia truncata G.M. Smith 1920. Bulletin of the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey 57(1): 146, pl. 36, figs 7���9. Nomenclatural synonym: Crucigeniella truncata (G.M. Smith) Kom��rek (1974: 38). Taxonomic synonym: Crucigenia apiculata var. truncata (G.M. Smith) Ahlstrom & Tiffany in Tiffany (1934: 69). Requiring further investigation is Crucigeniella divergens (G.M. Smith) Fott (1981: 2) (basionym: Crucigenia divergens G.M. Smith (1926: 185)), the type species of Crucigeniopsis), a genus established by Hind��k (1984: 267) and based largely on characters associated with reproduction. According to Hind��k (1984: 268), Crucigeniopsis is distinguished from Crucigeniella by not producing autospores nor having ���young��� cells lying in one plane within the coenobium, but rather the cells are in pairs produced by division at right angles to the long axis of the coenobium and initially lie at ���an approximate right angle��� and the angle changing later but the cells never ���fully in one plane, but pairs of cells were inclined to each other under a blunt angle���. Only a molecular approach will unequivocally resolve relationships in the morphologically defined genera traditionally placed in the subfamily Crucigenioideae. The few strains of crucigenoid species examined so far have been placed in the Trebouxiophyceae, although in at least three different lineages (Bock et al. 2013, Krienitz et al. 2003)., Published as part of John, David M., Wynne, Michael J. & Tsarenko, Petro M., 2014, Reinstatement of the genus Willea Schmidle 1900 for Crucigeniella Lemmermann 1900 nom. illeg. (Chlorellales, Trebouxiophyceae, Chlorophyta), pp. 212-214 in Phytotaxa 167 (2) on page 213, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.167.2.10, http://zenodo.org/record/5138749, {"references":["Smith, G. M. (1920) Phytoplankton of the Inland Lakes of Wisconsin. Part I: Myxophyceae, Phaeophyceae, Heterokonteae, and Chlorophyceae exclusive of the Desmidiaceae. Bulletin of the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey 57, Scientific Series 12: 1 - 243.","Komarek, J. (1974) The morphology and taxonomy of crucigenoid algae (Scenedesmaceae, Chlorococcales). Archiv fur Protistenkunde 116: 1 - 74.","Tiffany, L. H. (1934) The plankton algae of the west end of Lake Erie. Contribution of the Ohio State University. The Franz Theodore Stone Laboratory 6: 1 - 112.","Fott, B. (1981) Nomenklatorische Anderungen bei einigen Chlorokokkalalgen. Preslia 53: 1 - 7.","Smith, G. M. (1926) The plankton algae of the Okoboji Region. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 45 (3): 156 - 233. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.2307 / 3221686","Hindak, F. (1984) Studies on the chlorococcal algae (Chlorophyceae). III. Biologicke Prace 84 (1): 1 - 308.","Bock, C., Luo, W., Kusber, W. - H., Hegewald, E., Pazoutoya, M. & Krienitz, L. (2013) Classification of the crucigenoid algae: phylogenetic position of the reinstated genus Lemmermannia, Tetrastrum spp., Crucigenia tetrapedia, and C. lauterbornii (Trebouxiophyceae, Chlorophyta). Journal of Phycology 49: 329 - 339.","Krienitz, L., Hegewald, E., Hepperle, D. & Wolf, M. (2003) The systematics of coccoid green algae: 18 S rRNA gene sequences data versus morphology. Biologia, Bratislava 58 (2): 437 - 446."]}

John, David M., Wynne, Michael J., Tsarenko, Petro M. (2014): Reinstatement of the genus Willea Schmidle 1900 for Crucigeniella Lemmermann 1900 nom. illeg. (Chlorellales, Trebouxiophyceae, Chlorophyta). Phytotaxa 167 (2): 212-214, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.167.2.10, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.167.2.10

Willea apiculata (Lemmermann) D.M. John, M.J. Wynne & P. Tsarenko, comb. nov. Basionym: Staurogenia apiculata Lemmermann 1898. Botanisches Centralblatt 76(4): 151, pl. 1: 14. Nomenclatural synonyms: Crucigeniella apiculata (Lemmermann) Kom��rek (1974: 38); Crucigenia apiculata (Lemmermann) Schmidle (1900b: 234). Taxonomic synonyms: Crucigeniella pulchra (W. West & G.S. West) Kom��rek (1974: 39); Crucigenia pulchra W. West & G.S. West (1902: 63)., Published as part of John, David M., Wynne, Michael J. & Tsarenko, Petro M., 2014, Reinstatement of the genus Willea Schmidle 1900 for Crucigeniella Lemmermann 1900 nom. illeg. (Chlorellales, Trebouxiophyceae, Chlorophyta), pp. 212-214 in Phytotaxa 167 (2) on page 212, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.167.2.10, http://zenodo.org/record/5138749, {"references":["Lemmermann, E. (1898) Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Planktonalgen. Botanisches Centralblatt 76: 150 - 156.","Komarek, J. (1974) The morphology and taxonomy of crucigenoid algae (Scenedesmaceae, Chlorococcales). Archiv fur Protistenkunde 116: 1 - 74.","Schmidle, W. (1900 b) Algologische Notizen 15. Allgemeine Botanisches Zeitschrift 6 (12): 233 - 234.","West, W. & West, G. S. (1902) A contribution to the freshwater algae of the north of Ireland. Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy 32 (Sect. B): 1 - 100."]}

Willea crucifera (Wolle) D.M. John, M.J. Wynne & P. Tsarenko, comb. nov. Basionym: Staurogenia crucifera Wolle 1877. Bulletin of the Torrey Botany Club 6(27): 140, fig. 6. Nomenclatural synonyms: Crucigenia crucifera (Wolle) O. Kuntze (1898: 402); Crucigeniella crucifera (Wolle) Kom��rek (1974: 39); Staurogenia crucifera Wolle (1877: 140). Taxonomic synonym: Staurogenia cruciata [��� cruciatum ���] Wolle (1887: 171, pl. CLVII, figs 9-11)., Published as part of John, David M., Wynne, Michael J. & Tsarenko, Petro M., 2014, Reinstatement of the genus Willea Schmidle 1900 for Crucigeniella Lemmermann 1900 nom. illeg. (Chlorellales, Trebouxiophyceae, Chlorophyta), pp. 212-214 in Phytotaxa 167 (2) on page 213, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.167.2.10, http://zenodo.org/record/5138749, {"references":["Wolle, F. (1877) Fresh-water algae. Bulletin of the Torrey Botany Club 6 (27): 137 - 141.","Kuntze, O. (1898) Revisio generum plantarum: vascularium omnium atque cellularium multarum secundum leges nomenclaturae internationales cum enumeratione plantarum exoticarum in itinere mundi collectarum, vol. 3 b. A. Felix, Leipzig, 576 pp. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 327","Komarek, J. (1974) The morphology and taxonomy of crucigenoid algae (Scenedesmaceae, Chlorococcales). Archiv fur Protistenkunde 116: 1 - 74.","Wolle, F. (1887) Fresh-water Algae of the United States; (exclusive of the Diatomaceae). Complemental to Desmids of the United States; with two thousand three hundred illustrations, covering one hundred and fifty-one plates, a few colored, including nine additional plates of Desmids. By the Rev. Francis Wolle, member of the American Society of Microscopists. The Comenius Press, Bethlehem, 364 pp., Atlas, 157 pls. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 1624"]}

Hollier, John (2013): An annotated list of the Orthoptera (Insecta) species described by Henri de Saussure, with an account of the primary type material housed in the Mus��um d'histoire naturelle de Gen��ve, Part 4: The Acridomorpha excluding the superfamily Acridoidea. Revue suisse de Zoologie 120 (2): 203-219, {"references":["BANERJEE, S. K. & KEVAN, D. K. M. 1960. A preliminary revision of the genus Atractomorpha Saussure, 1862 (Orthoptera : Acridiodea : Pyrgomorphidae). Treubia 25: 165-189.","BOLIVAR, I. 1884. Monografia de los pirgomorfinos. Anales de la Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural 13: 1-73, 418-500.","BOLIVAR, I. 1887. Essai sur les Acridiens de la tribu des Tettigidae. Annales de la Societe Entomologique de Belgique 31: 175-313.","DESCAMPS, M. 1964. Revision preliminaire des Euschmidtiinae (Orthoptera - Eumastacidae). Memoires du Museum national d'histoire naturelle (Serie A, Zoologie) 30: 1-324.","DESCAMPS, M. 1965. Contribution a l'etude des Eumastacides Malgaches (Orthoptera - Eumastacidae). I. Revision des Miraculinae. Memoires du Museum national d'histoire naturelle (Serie A, Zoologie) 34: 3-57.","DESCAMPS, M. 1970. Revision des Pseudomastacinae (Orth., Eumastacidae). Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France 6: 613-635.","DESCAMPS, M. 1973. Diagnosis et signalisations d'Eumastacoidea (Orth.). IV. Amerique. Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France (N.S.) 9: 943-974.","DIRSH, V. M. 1961. Notes on Acridoidea of Africa, Madagascar and Asia (Orthoptera). Eos, Revista espanola de Entomologia 37: 379-398.","DIRSH, V. M. 1963. The Acridoidea (Orthoptera) of Madagascar III. Pyrgomorphidae. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Entomology 13: 51-103.","DIRSH, V. M. & MASON, J. B. 1979. Systematic and phylogenetic position of the family Xyronotidae (Acridomorpha, Insecta). Zeitschrift fur zoologische Systematik und Evolutionforschung 17: 201-210.","DISTANT, W. L. 1892. A naturalist in the Transvaal. R. H. Porter, London. xiv + 277 pp.","EADES, D. C., OTTE, D., CIGLIANO, M. M. & BRAUN, H. 2012. Orthoptera Species File Online. Version 2.0/4.0. http://www.Orthoptera.SpeciesFile.org [accessed 20.xi.2012].","HOLLIER, J. 2012a. An annotated list of the Orthoptera (Insecta) species described by Henri de Saussure, with an account of the primary type material housed in the Museum d'histoire naturelle de Geneve, Part 2: The Acrididae: Oedipodinae. Revue suisse de Zoologie 119: 215-260.","HOLLIER, J. 2012b. An annotated list of the Orthoptera (Insecta) species described by Henri de Saussure, with an account of the primary type material housed in the Museum d'histoire naturelle de Geneve, Part 3: The Acrididoidea excluding the Acrididae: Oedipodinae. Revue suisse de Zoologie 119: 303-339.","HOLLIER, J. & HEADS, S. M. 2012. An annotated list of the Orthoptera (Insecta) species described by Henri de Saussure, with an account of the primary type material housed in the Museum d'histoire naturelle de Geneve, Part 1: The Tridactyloidea. Revue suisse de Zoologie 119: 149-160.","KEVAN, D. K. M. 1952. On the systematic position of two anomalous genera previously placed in the subfamily Pyrgomorphinae (Orth., Acrididae). Entomologist's monthly Magazine 88: 265-272.","KEVAN, D. K. M. 1960. On the identity of Minorissa alata Thomas, 1874, and Atractomorpha congensis Saussure, 1893 [nomen nudum] (Orthoptera: Pyrgomorphidae). Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society 55: 36-41.","KEVAN, D. K. M. 1963. Pyrgomorphidae (Orthoptera; Acridoidea) in the collection of C. P. Thunberg, Uppsala, with notes on type material of the species represented. Arkiv for Zoologi 16: 69-94.","KEVAN, D. K. M. 1970. Indian Pyrgomorphini other than Pyrgomorpha. Revue suisse de Zoologie 77: 851-866.","KEVAN, D. K. M. 1975. A revision of the genus Taphronota Stal 1873 (Orthoptera: Acridoidea, Pyrgomorphidae). Publicacoes Culturais da Companhia de Diamantes de Angola 88: 79-149.","KEVAN, D. K. M. 1977. Superfamily Acridoidea, fam. Pyrgomorphidae. In: BEIER, M. (ed.). Orthopterorum Catalogus 16: 1-656.","KEVAN, D. K. M. & CHEN, Y. K. 1969. A revised synopsis of the genus Atractomorpha Saussure, 1862 (Orthoptera: Pyrgomorphidae) with an account of the African aberrans -group. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society 48: 141-198.","KEVAN, D. K. M., SINGH, A. & AKBAR, S. 1964. A revision of the Mexican Pyrgomorphidae (Orthoptera: Acridoidea). I. Genera other than Sphenarium. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 116: 231-298.","OHL, M. & OSWALD, J. D. 2004. Annotated list of the primary type specimens of Megaloptera and Raphidioptera (Insecta, Neuropterida) in the Museum fur Naturkunde der Humbolt- Universitat zu Berlin. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift (N.S.) 51: 87-96.","REHN, J. A. G. & GRANT, H. J. 1957. The genus Paratettix as found in North America (Orthoptera; Acridoidea; Tetrigidae). Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Phladelphia 109: 247-319.","RILEY, C.V. 1893. Scientific results of the U. S. Eclipse expedition to West Africa 1889-'90. Report upon the Insecta, Arachnida and Myriopoda. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 16: 565-590.","SAUSSURE, H. DE 1859. Orthoptera Nova Americana. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie Pure et Appliquee 11: 201-212, 315-316, 390-394.","SAUSSURE, H. DE 1861a. Orthoptera Nova Americana. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie Pure et Appliquee 13: 126-130, 156-164, 313-324, 397-402.","SAUSSURE, H. DE 1861b. Etudes sur quelques Orthopteres du Musee de Geneve. Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France (4th series) 1: 469-494.","SAUSSURE, H. DE 1884. Prodromus Oedipodiorum, Insectorum ex ordine Orthopterorum. Memoires de la Societe de Physique et d'Histoire naturelle de Geneve 28(9): 1-258.","SAUSSURE, H. DE 1899. Orthoptera (pp. 567-664). In: VOELTZKOW, A. (ed.). Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Reisen in Madagaskar und Ostafrika in den Jahren 1889-95. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft 21: 1-664.","SAUSSURE, H. DE 1903a. Diagnosen von 4 neuen Gattungen der Eumastaciden (Orthoptera: Acridoidea). Zoologischer Anzeiger 26: 412-415. (Appeared 8.v.1903).","SAUSSURE, H. DE 1903b. Analecta entomologica II. Notice sur la tribu des Eumastaciens. Revue suisse de Zoologie 11: 43-114. (Appeared 1.vii.1903).","SAVIGNY, J.-C. 1817. Description de l'Egypte: ou recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont ete faites en Egypte. Publie par les ordres de sa majeste l'empereur Napoleon le Grand. Histoire naturelle. Volume 19. Histoire Naturelle: Planches II. Imprimerie nationale, Paris, 212 pp.","WILLEMSE, C. J. M. 1931. Orthoptera Celebica Sarasiniana. I. Saltatoria, Fam. Acrididae. Treubia 12: 189-270."]}

Lanceola loveni antarctica Vinogradov, 1962 (Figs. 1, 2) Lanceola loveni antarctica Vinogradov 1962: 6���10, figs 1, 2, 4.��� Hurley 1969: 33.��� Vinogradov et al. 1982 / 1996: 64 /74���75, fig. 13.��� De Broyer & Jażdżewski 1993: 109.���Zeidler 2009: 16���17.��� Zeidler & De Broyer 2009: 28.��� Zeidler & De Broyer 2014: 304.��� Zeidler 2019: 512. Material examined. Southwest Atlantic. Female (USNM 1089979), Scotia Sea, near Sandwich Islands, Cruise 8, station 575 [54��33���S 24��19���W], 1867 m, no date; female (USNM 1090242), Cruise 8, station 640 [58��10���S 23��39���W], 1537 m, no date. Southeast Pacific. Female (USNM 1013495), western Drake Passage, Cruise 10, station 811 [64.767��S 78.1��W], 461���1263 m, 30 October 1963 (figured here). Southern Ocean, Pacific Sector. Female (USNM 1090243), Cruise 11, station 890 [59��39���S 114��37���W], 595���609 m, 3 January 1964. Strait of Magellan. Male (USNM 1090255), Cruise 11, station 957 [53����� S 75��00���W], 458���732 m, 5 February 1964 (Figs 1, 2). Type material. Lanceola loveni antarctica was described from seven specimens, 7���27 mm, collected by the Russian research vessel Ob from the following five stations between the Antarctic Continent and the Antarctic Polar Front. From the Indian Ocean Sector: station 36, off Wilkes Land [62��55���S 118��52���E], 0���3,700 m; station 105, near the Davis Sea [55��40���S 106��13���E], 240���600 m; station 111 [64��25���S 92��52���E], 0���2,000 m; station 285 [59��29���S 97��08���E], 0���4500 m. From the Pacific Sector: station 57, near the Balleny Islands [64��03���S 161��59���E], 0���2,000 m and 0���3,000 m. The syntypes from stations 36 and 57 are in the Zoological Museum of the Moscow State University (Mb���1049 and 1050). A female is illustrated by Vinogradov (1962). Description of male 25 mm (Fig. 1). Distal corner of pereonites 6 and 7, pleonites and first urosomite produced into small, distinct, dorsal denticles. Head with relatively long, rounded rostrum. Eyes very small, reniform, without crystalline cones. A1 slightly longer than head and first pereonite combined. A2 length 2 x A1, almost as long as head and first two pereonites combined. G1; basis relatively slender, both margins fringed with long setae, about as long as remaining articles combined; carpus length 0.6 x basis, distal margin width about 1.5 x proximal margin of propodus; propodus conical-shaped, length 1.6 x proximal width; dactylus very slender, almost as long as 0.5 x propodus. G2 with relatively long, slender articles, much longer than G1; basis length about 1.5 x carpus; propodus gradually tapering to narrow distal margin, length about 0.8 x carpus; dactylus inserted terminally to propodus, length slightly less than 0.3 x propodus. P3 length about 1.2 x G2, with similar slender articles; basis length 1.5 x merus; carpus length 0.8 x merus; propodus slightly longer than carpus; dactylus inserted terminally to propodus, length marginally less than 0.2 x propodus. P4 morphologically similar to P3, marginally shorter, with slight differences in relative lengths of articles as follows: basis length 1.3 x merus; carpus length marginally more than 0.8 x merus; propodus and carpus sub-equal in length. P5���7 all with relatively long, slender articles and fully retractile, hooded dactyls. P5 length 1.2 x P4; basis length almost 1.5 x merus; carpus length 0.8 x merus, 1.4 x propodus; dactylus without setae. P6 length 1.2 x P5, almost as long as pereon and first two pleonites combined; basis length about 1.3 x merus; carpus length almost 0.8 x merus, 0.8 x propodus; dactylus inserted in slight bulge of propodus, fringe of short setae on anterior margin. P7 about 0.5 x P6 length; basis length 1.6 x merus; carpus marginally shorter than merus, about 0.8 x propodus; dactylus with fringe of short setae on anterior margin. Urosome with relatively slender peduncles and rami. Rami of all uropoda sub-equal in length. Peduncle of U1 marginally exceeds limit of peduncle of U2. Peduncle length of U1 = 1.8 x rami, of U2 = 1.5 x rami, of U3 = 1.3 x rami. Telson acute, apex rounded; length about 1.3 x width at base, reaching to about middle of peduncle of U3. Description of female 26 mm (Fig. 2). Distal corner of pereonites 6 and 7, pleonites and first urosomite produced into small, distinct, dorsal denticles. Head with short, rounded rostrum. Eyes very small, reniform, without crystalline cones. A1 slightly longer than head and first pereonite combined. A2 length 2.4 x A1, slightly longer than head and first two pereonites combined. G1; basis relatively slender, fringed with long setae on both margins, about as long as remaining articles combined; carpus length 0.5 x basis, distal margin width about 1.4 x proximal margin of propodus; propodus conical-shaped, length 1.6 x proximal width; dactylus missing. G2 with relatively long, slender articles, much longer than G1; basis length about 1.8 x carpus; propodus gradually tapering to narrow distal margin, length almost 0.8 x carpus; dactylus inserted terminally to propodus, length slightly less than 0.3 x propodus. P3 slightly longer than G2, with similar slender articles; basis length 1.6 x merus; carpus length 0.8 x merus; propodus slightly longer than carpus; dactylus missing. P4 morphologically similar to P3 but marginally longer, with slight differences in relative lengths of articles as follows: basis length about 1.3 x merus; carpus slightly shorter than merus; propodus slightly longer than carpus; dactylus missing. P5���7 all with relatively long, slender articles and fully retractile, hooded dactyls. P5 length almost 1.2 x P4; basis length 1.5 x merus; carpus length almost 0.8 x merus, 1.2 x propodus; dactylus without setae. P6 length 1.2 x P5, almost as long as pereon and pleon combined; basis length about 1.3 x merus; carpus length 0.8 x merus; propodus as long as merus; dactylus inserted in slight bulge of propodus, too dense to determine presence of setae. P7 almost 0.5 x P6; basis length 1.7 x merus; carpus marginally shorter than merus, about 0.8 x propodus; dactylus without fringe of short setae on anterior margin. Urosome with relatively slender peduncles and rami. Rami of all uropoda sub-equal in length. Peduncle of U1 slightly exceeds limit of peduncle of U2. Peduncle lengths of U1 = about 2.0 x rami; of U2 = 1.6 x rami; of U3 = 1.4 x rami. Telson acute, with rounded apex; length about 1.4 x width at base, reaching to about the middle of peduncle of U3. The main differences from the male, apart from minor differences in the relative lengths of articles, are as follows: i) the head has a shorter rostrum; ii) A2 are relatively longer; iii) the basis of G2 is relatively longer; iv) P3 is slightly shorter than P4; v) P5���7 are relatively marginally longer compared to the body length; vi) the dactylus of P7 is without setae (maybe also P6, not discernable); and vii) the peduncles of U1���3 are marginally longer compared to the rami. Remarks. The most obvious difference from the typical form is that individuals of all ages have the distal corner of the pleonites produced into small dorsal denticles, similar to L. serrata Bovallius, 1885, but that species is distinguished by the much longer telson (slightly longer or shorter than the peduncle of U3) and the wide distal margin of the carpus of G1. Other distinguishing characters from the typical form are as follows: i) the head has a more prominent rostrum, especially for males; ii) the carpus and propodus of G1 are slightly more elongate; iii) the propodus of P6 is more club-like, similar to L. loveni grossipes Shoemaker, 1945; iv) the telson is marginally more narrow; and v) there are also minor differences in the relative lengths of appendages and articles, although these may be within the confines of specific variability. The relatively long rostrum of the male, illustrated here, is particularly distinctive and may be an unusual feature of this specimen. Whether or not it is a genuine male character can only be determined with the discovery of more material. Vinogradov et al. (1982, 1996) list L. australis Stebbing, 1888 as a questionable synonym of this species, probably based on the presence of dorsal denticles on the pleonites. However, an examination of the type material in the Natural History Museum, London has confirmed that it is a synonym of L. serrata (Zeidler 2009). Distribution. This species seems to be restricted mainly to the Antarctic Sectors of the Southern Ocean. It has been recorded in the Atlantic Sector from the Scotia Sea to the Drake Passage and from there to the Pacific Sector as far as 114��37���W, and in the Indian Ocean Sector from off Wilkes Land and near the Davis Sea; from various hauls from 4,500 m to the surface, as detailed above. The male, illustrated here (USNM 1090255), from the Strait of Magellan, is a new distribution record for this species., Published as part of Zeidler, Wolfgang, 2021, Redescription of two rare, deep-sea species of hyperiidean amphipod, Lanceola loveni antarctica Vinogradov, 1962 and L. sphaerica Vinogradov, 1970 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Lanceolidae), pp. 106-114 in Zootaxa 5067 (1) on pages 107-111, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5067.1.6, http://zenodo.org/record/5656569, {"references":["Vinogradov, M. E. (1962) Hyperiidea (Amphipoda) collected by the Soviet Antarctic Expedition on M / V ' Ob' south of 40 ° S. Issledovaniya Fauny Morei I (IX), Resultaty biologcheskikh issledovanii Sovetskoi antarkticheskoi ekspeditsii (1955 - 1958), 1, 1 - 35. [in Russian; English translation: Biological Reports of the Soviet Antarctic Expedition (1955 - 1958). Vol. 1. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 32 pp. (1966)]","Hurley, D. E. (1969) Amphipoda Hyperiidea. In: ' Antarctic Map Folio Series', Folio 11, Distribution of selected groups of marine invertebrates in waters south of 35 ° S Latitude. American Geographical Society, New York, New York, pp. 32 - 34, sheets 1 - 2.","Vinogradov, M. E., Volkov, A. F. & Semenova, T. N. (1982) Amfipody-Giperiidy (Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) Mirovogo Okeanea. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, No. 132. Leningrad, 492 pp. [in Russian]","Vinogradov, M. E., Volkov, A. F. & Semenova, T. N. (1996) Hyperiid Amphipods (Amphipoda, Hyperiidea) of the World Oceans. Smithsonian Institution Libraries, D. Siegel-Causey, Scientific Editor, Washington D. C. and Oxonian Press Pvy. Ltd., New Delhi, 632 pp. [English translation from 1982 Russian original]","De Broyer, C. & Jazdzewski, K. (1993) Contribution to the marine inventory. A checklist of the Amphipoda (Crustacea) of the Southern Ocean. Documents de travail de l'Institut royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique, 73, 1 - 154.","Zeidler, W. & De Broyer, C. (2009) Catalogue of the Hyperiidean Amphipoda (Crustacea) of the Southern Ocean with distribution and ecological data. In: De Broyer, C. (Ed.), Census of Antarctic Marine Life: Synopsis of the Amphipoda of the Southern Ocean, Volume 3. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Biologie, 79 (Supplement 1), pp. 1 - 96, 4 colour pls.","Zeidler, W. & De Broyer, C. (2014) Chapter 6.8. Amphipoda: Hyperiidea. In: De Broyer, C., Koubbi, P., Griffiths, H. J., Raymond, B., d'Udekem d'Acoz, C., van de Putte, A. P., Danis, B., David, B., Grant, S., Gutt, J., Held, C., Hosie, G., Huettmann, F., Post, A. & Ropert-Coudert, Y. (Eds.), Biogeographic Atlas of the Southern Ocean. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Cambridge, pp. 303 - 308.","Zeidler, W. (2019) New and additional records of hyperiidean amphipods of the Infraorder Physosomata (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) from the Antarctic Zone of the Southern Ocean. Zootaxa, 4576 (3), 510 - 520. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4576.3.5","Bovallius, C. (1885) On some forgotten genera among the amphipodous Crustacea. Bihang till Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps- Akademiens Handlingar, 10 (14), 1 - 17, 1 pl. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. part. 5127","Shoemaker, C. R. (1945) The Amphipoda of the Bermuda Oceanographic Expeditions, 1929 - 1931. Zoologica, New York, 30 (4), 185 - 266. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / p. 210854","Stebbing, T. R. R. (1888) Report on the Amphipoda collected by H. M. S. ' Challenger' during the years 1873 - 1876. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H. M. S. ' Challenger' during the years 1873 - 76. Zoology, 29, i - xxiv + 1 - 1737, pls. 1 - 210."]}

Lanceola falsa Vinogradov (Fig. 17) Lanceola falsa Vinogradov, 1970: 391–393, fig 5. Vinogradov et al. 1982: 60–61, fig. 10. Type material. This species was described from two sexually mature females, with body length of 22 and 24 mm, caught in the Kurile-Kamchatka region of the North-west Pacific; Vityaz Stn. 5606 [46º10’N 153º13’E; 0–4000 m] and Vityaz Stn. 5612 [45º23’– 45º34’N 153º04’– 153º48’E; 0–5850 m]. The female of length 22 mm is described and figured by Vinogradov (1970) and is in the ZMMU (Mb–1044), on microscope slides. Diagnosis. According to Vinogradov (1970). Only known from the two female specimens as detailed above. Habitus like L. sayana. Head with small, indistinct, hooked rostrum. Eyes small, reniform, without crystalline cones. Antennae 1 relatively short; terminal article slightly longer than preceding two combined. Antennae 2 length about 1.5x A1. Pereopod 3 similar to P4; basis length about twice merus; carpus slightly longer than merus; propodus slightly longer than carpus; dactylus short, length about 0.2x propodus. Pereopods 5–7 with stout articles with longitudinal ridges; the dactyls are stout and non-retractile and the propodus is without spoon-shaped formation. Pereopod 5 similar in length to P4; basis length about 1.8x merus; carpus slightly longer than merus; propodus length 1.2x carpus; dactylus short, stout, slightly curved. Pereopod 6; length 1.2x P5; basis length 1.5x merus; carpus length 1.4x merus; propodus length 1.2x carpus; dactylus as for P5. Pereopod 7; length 0.6x P6; basis length slightly more than twice merus; carpus length 1.7x merus; propodus length 1.3x carpus; dactylus as for P5. Uropoda with relatively broad rami, especially U3. Telson rounded; length 0.7x peduncle of U3. Colour of living specimens not recorded. Remarks. I have not seen any specimens of this species but accept its validity based on the observations of Vinogradov (1970). This species is distinguished from all of its congeners by the non-retractile dactyls of pereopods 5–7, and in this character is atypical of the genus Lanceola. However, its removal from Lanceola is not warranted at this stage because it superficially resembles other species of Lanceola, such as L. sayana and L. pacifica. The loss or reduction of retractile and hooded dactyls is also seen in pereopod 5 of L. sphaerica, L. chelifera and L. gruneri sp. nov., but in these species retractile and hooded dactyls are maintained for pereopods 6 & 7. Distribution. Only known from the Kurile-Kamchatka region of the Pacific Ocean, from two specimens as detailed above., Published as part of Zeidler, Wolfgang, 2009, A review of the hyperiidean amphipod superfamily Lanceoloidea Bowman & Gruner, 1973 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea), pp. 1-117 in Zootaxa 2000 on pages 52-53, {"references":["Vinogradov, M. E. (1970) New data on the amphipods Hyperiidea Physosomata of the northwest part of the Pacific. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 86: 382 - 400. [In Russian]. English translation: In: Bogorov, V. G. (Ed.) Fauna of the Kurile-Kamchatka Trench and its Environment, pp. 398 - 418. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1972.","Vinogradov, M. E., Volkov, A. F. & Semenova, T. N. (1982) Amfipody-Giperiidy (Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) Mirovogo Okeanea. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR No. 132. Leningrad, 492 pp. [In Russian]. English translation, 1996, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington D. C., D. Siegel-Causey, Scientific Editor."]}

Key to the species of the genus Lanceola 1. Pereopods 3 & 4; dactylus length about 0.75x propodus .......................................... L. longidactyla Vinogradov, 1964 - Pereopods 3 & 4; dactylus length much less than 0.5x propodus.................................................................................2 2. Pereopods 3 & 4 subchelate, formed by narrow, curved propodus folded against enlarged carpus, with row of strong setae along posterior margin ........................................................................................... L. chelifera Vinogradov, 1970 - Pereopods 3 & 4 not subchelate, with normal, relatively narrow carpus and propodus...............................................3 3. Pereopod 5; dactylus not fully retractile, only partly hooded.......................................................................................4 - Pereopods 5–7 all with similar, fully retractile and hooded dactyls.............................................................................6 4. Pereopods 6 & 7; only proximal part of dactylus retractile .................................................. L. falsa Vinogradov, 1970 - Pereopods 6 & 7 with normal, fully retractile and hooded dactyls...............................................................................5 5. Pereopod 5 weakly subchelate, formed by partly hooded, curved dactylus pressed against anterior margin of slightly distally swollen propodus. Antennae 2 slightly longer than A1 ................................... L. sphaerica Vinogradov, 1957 - Pereopod 5; dactylus relatively straight, not hooded, partly retractile proximally. Antennae 2 slightly shorter than A1 ........................................................................................................................................................... L. gruneri sp. nov. 6. Antennae 2; distal peduncular article with distinct lobe overlapping almost half following article medially............... ...................................................................................................................................... L. intermedia Vinogradov, 1960 - Antennae 2; distal peduncular article without medial lobe or with relatively small lobe.............................................7 7. Pereopod 7; length about 0.75x P6. Antennae 2 only slightly longer or subequal in length to A1................................ ................................................................................................................................................. L. clausi Bovallius, 1885 - Pereopod 7; length about 0.5x P6. Antennae 2 considerably longer than A1...............................................................8 8. Telson shorter than peduncle of U3..............................................................................................................................9 - Telson as long or longer than peduncle of U3.............................................................................................................11 9. Telson length about 0.5x peduncle of U3 ............................................................................... L. loveni Bovallius, 1885 - Telson length about 0.75x (or more) peduncle of U3.................................................................................................10 10. Pereonite 6 to urosomite 1 produced into dorsal denticles. Gnathopod 1; carpus with broadened distal margin, at least twice width propodus. Eyes reniform ........................................................................... L. serrata Bovallius, 1885 - Pereonites, pleonites and urosomites without dorsal denticles. Gnathopod 1; carpus with distal margin only slightly wider than propodus. Eyes with crystalline cones .................................................................. L. felina Bovallius, 1885 11. Pereopod 5; merus broadened, elongated-oval. Pleonite 1 with dorsal depression....... L. laticarpa Vinogradov, 1957 - Pereopod 5; merus linear, not broadened. Pleonite 1 without dorsal depression........................................................12 12. Head without rostrum. Pereopods 3–5; anterodistal corner of merus produced into small, sharp corner. Eyes reniform .............................................................................................................................................. L. pacifica Stebbing, 1888 - Head produced into distinct hook-shaped or rounded rostrum. Pereopods 3–5; anterodistal corner of merus not noticeably produced. Eyes with crystalline cones..................................................................................................... 13 13. Head produced into hook-shaped rostrum. Antennae 1; distal three articles fused. Pereopod 6; merus linear, without anterior bulge ........................................................................................................................ L. sayana Bovallius, 1885 - Head produced into broad, rounded rostrum. Antennae 1; distal articles separate. Pereopod 6; merus with distinct anterior, medial bulge .................................................................................................................... L. galatheae sp. nov., Published as part of Zeidler, Wolfgang, 2009, A review of the hyperiidean amphipod superfamily Lanceoloidea Bowman & Gruner, 1973 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea), pp. 1-117 in Zootaxa 2000 on pages 11-12, {"references":["Vinogradov, M. E. (1964) Hyperiidea Physosomata from the northern part of the Indian Ocean. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 65, 107 - 151. [In Russian].","Vinogradov, M. E. (1970) New data on the amphipods Hyperiidea Physosomata of the northwest part of the Pacific. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 86: 382 - 400. [In Russian]. English translation: In: Bogorov, V. G. (Ed.) Fauna of the Kurile-Kamchatka Trench and its Environment, pp. 398 - 418. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1972.","Vinogradov, M. E. (1957) Hyperiids (Amphipoda) of the Northwest Pacific Ocean. 1. Tribe Hyperiidea Physosomata. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 20: 186 - 227. [In Russian]. English translation by American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington D. C., 1959, Marine Biology, 149 - 184.","Bovallius, C. (1885) On some forgotten genera among the amphipodous Crustacea. Bihang till Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar 10 (14), 1 - 17, 1 pl.","Stebbing, T. R. R. (1888) Report on the Amphipoda collected by H. M. S. ' Challenger' during the years 1873 - 1876. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H. M. S. ' Challenger' during the years 1873 - 76. Zoology 29, i - xxiv & 1 - 1737, pls 1 - 210."]}

Lanceola clausi pirloti (Shoemaker) (Fig. 9) Lanceola pirloti Shoemaker, 1945: 212, figs 19, 20. Shih & Chen 1995: 32–34,fig. 16. Lanceola clausi pirloti Vinogradov 1960a: 207; 1964: 112. Vinogradov et al. 1982: 70–71, fig. 17. Type material. Shoemaker (1945) described his species form six specimens collected near Bermuda at depths between 700 and 1000 fathoms. The USNM has three syntypes; two males (109467 & 9) and one female (109468). The whereabouts of the other three specimens is unknown. Material examined. Types. Syntype female (USNM 109468) and two syntype males (USNM 109467 & 9) from the North Atlantic, near Bermuda [32º12’N 64º36’W]; William Beebe Oceanographic Expedition, 13 Jul. 1929 and 7 & 29 Sept. 1930 respectively: in spirit. Other material examined. Central South Pacific: Female (ZMUC CRU-9920); S. of Tahiti [18º49’S 153º10’W]; Dana Stn. 3577 VII, 4000 mw, 19 Oct. 1928. Male (ZMUC); N. of New Zealand [28º17.6’S 177º01’E]; Dana Stn. 3624 III, 3000 mw, 10 Dec. 1928. Diagnosis. Like typical form except for the following. Length of sexually mature specimens 12–16 mm. Antennae 2 are relatively shorter, often subequal in length to A1. Gnathopoda and P3 & 4 have more robust articles. Gnathopod 1; basis especially broad with distinct anterior bulge. Pereopods 3 & 4 with shorter and wider merus, also propodus is shorter than carpus. Pereopods 5 & 6 are relatively longer. Pereopods 6 & 7 with relatively longer propodus. Remarks. Described as a species distinct from L. clausi by Shoemaker (1945), the above differences are sometimes intermediate between L. clausi and L. pirloti. Thus, I concur with Vinogradov et al. (1982) in that L. pirloti should be considered a subspecies of the highly variable L. clausi. Distribution. This subspecies has been recorded from the North Atlantic, near Bermuda [32º12’N 54º36’W] by Shoemaker (1945); the North-west Pacific, south of Japan by Vinogradov (1960a) and from the South China Sea by Shih and Chen (1995) and the Indian Ocean [01º59.1’S 86º41.4’E and 26º45.7’S 108º18.6É] by Vinogradov (1964). The Dana specimens are the first records from the central South Pacific., Published as part of Zeidler, Wolfgang, 2009, A review of the hyperiidean amphipod superfamily Lanceoloidea Bowman & Gruner, 1973 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea), pp. 1-117 in Zootaxa 2000 on pages 36-37, {"references":["Shoemaker, C. R. (1945) The Amphipoda of the Bermuda Oceanographic Expeditions, 1929 - 1931. Zoologica, New York, 30, 185 - 266.","Shih, C. - T. & Chen, Q. - C. (1995) Zooplankton of China Seas (2) - The Hyperiidea (Crustacea: Amphipoda). China Ocean Press, Beijing, 295 pp.","Vinogradov, M. E. (1960 a) Hyperiidea Physosomata of the Tropical Pacific Ocean. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 41, 198 - 247. [In Russian].","Vinogradov, M. E. (1964) Hyperiidea Physosomata from the northern part of the Indian Ocean. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 65, 107 - 151. [In Russian].","Vinogradov, M. E., Volkov, A. F. & Semenova, T. N. (1982) Amfipody-Giperiidy (Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) Mirovogo Okeanea. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR No. 132. Leningrad, 492 pp. [In Russian]. English translation, 1996, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington D. C., D. Siegel-Causey, Scientific Editor."]}

Key to the species of the genus Lanceola 1. Pereopods 3 & 4; dactylus length about 0.75x propodus .......................................... L. longidactyla Vinogradov, 1964 - Pereopods 3 & 4; dactylus length much less than 0.5x propodus.................................................................................2 2. Pereopods 3 & 4 subchelate, formed by narrow, curved propodus folded against enlarged carpus, with row of strong setae along posterior margin ........................................................................................... L. chelifera Vinogradov, 1970 - Pereopods 3 & 4 not subchelate, with normal, relatively narrow carpus and propodus...............................................3 3. Pereopod 5; dactylus not fully retractile, only partly hooded.......................................................................................4 - Pereopods 5–7 all with similar, fully retractile and hooded dactyls.............................................................................6 4. Pereopods 6 & 7; only proximal part of dactylus retractile .................................................. L. falsa Vinogradov, 1970 - Pereopods 6 & 7 with normal, fully retractile and hooded dactyls...............................................................................5 5. Pereopod 5 weakly subchelate, formed by partly hooded, curved dactylus pressed against anterior margin of slightly distally swollen propodus. Antennae 2 slightly longer than A1 ................................... L. sphaerica Vinogradov, 1957 - Pereopod 5; dactylus relatively straight, not hooded, partly retractile proximally. Antennae 2 slightly shorter than A1 ........................................................................................................................................................... L. gruneri sp. nov. 6. Antennae 2; distal peduncular article with distinct lobe overlapping almost half following article medially............... ...................................................................................................................................... L. intermedia Vinogradov, 1960 - Antennae 2; distal peduncular article without medial lobe or with relatively small lobe.............................................7 7. Pereopod 7; length about 0.75x P6. Antennae 2 only slightly longer or subequal in length to A1................................ ................................................................................................................................................. L. clausi Bovallius, 1885 - Pereopod 7; length about 0.5x P6. Antennae 2 considerably longer than A1...............................................................8 8. Telson shorter than peduncle of U3..............................................................................................................................9 - Telson as long or longer than peduncle of U3.............................................................................................................11 9. Telson length about 0.5x peduncle of U3 ............................................................................... L. loveni Bovallius, 1885 - Telson length about 0.75x (or more) peduncle of U3.................................................................................................10 10. Pereonite 6 to urosomite 1 produced into dorsal denticles. Gnathopod 1; carpus with broadened distal margin, at least twice width propodus. Eyes reniform ........................................................................... L. serrata Bovallius, 1885 - Pereonites, pleonites and urosomites without dorsal denticles. Gnathopod 1; carpus with distal margin only slightly wider than propodus. Eyes with crystalline cones .................................................................. L. felina Bovallius, 1885 11. Pereopod 5; merus broadened, elongated-oval. Pleonite 1 with dorsal depression....... L. laticarpa Vinogradov, 1957 - Pereopod 5; merus linear, not broadened. Pleonite 1 without dorsal depression........................................................12 12. Head without rostrum. Pereopods 3–5; anterodistal corner of merus produced into small, sharp corner. Eyes reniform .............................................................................................................................................. L. pacifica Stebbing, 1888 - Head produced into distinct hook-shaped or rounded rostrum. Pereopods 3–5; anterodistal corner of merus not noticeably produced. Eyes with crystalline cones..................................................................................................... 13 13. Head produced into hook-shaped rostrum. Antennae 1; distal three articles fused. Pereopod 6; merus linear, without anterior bulge ........................................................................................................................ L. sayana Bovallius, 1885 - Head produced into broad, rounded rostrum. Antennae 1; distal articles separate. Pereopod 6; merus with distinct anterior, medial bulge .................................................................................................................... L. galatheae sp. nov.

Lanceola sphaerica (Vinogradov) (Fig. 13) Lanceola clausi var. sphaerica Vinogradov, 1957: 196, fig. 6. Lanceola sphaerica Vinogradov 1970: 383, 386–388, figs 1, 2. Vinogradov et al. 1982: 73–75, fig. 20. Type material. This species was first described as a variety of L. clausi from two damaged specimens, a mature female of length 8 mm and a male of length 9 mm, both caught in the Kurile-Kamchatka region of the North-West Pacific. The female from Vityaz Stn. 2076 [43°39’N 149°24’E] at 4200–7800 m and the male from Vityaz Stn. 2208 [49°23’N 158°45’E] at 0–6500 m. Later, Vinogradov (1970) established it as a full species with the availability of a well-preserved male of length 5.5 mm from the same general area; Vityaz Stn. 5626 [45°11’N 152°28’E] at 3000–4000 m. All three specimens are in the ZMMU (Mb–1051 to Mb–1053 respectively). Diagnosis. According to Vinogradov (1957 & 1970). Only known from the above three specimens; females reach maturity at 8.0mm. Habitus like L. clausi but pereon more inflated, especially in females. Head without rostrum. Eyes very small, reniform, without crystalline cones. Antennae 1 as long as head and first pereonite combined; terminal article elongate, slightly longer than twice preceding article. Antennae 2 relatively short, slightly longer than A1. Pereopod 3 similar to but slightly shorter than P4; basis length slightly more than twice merus (slightly less for P4); carpus slightly longer than merus; propodus length 1.2x carpus or longer; dactylus relatively long, length 0.4–0.5x propodus (slightly shorter in female). Pereopods 5–7 with retractile, mostly hooded dactyls. Pereopod 5 slightly shorter than P4; basis length 1.8x merus; carpus slightly longer than merus; propodus slightly longer than carpus, in males slightly expanded distally with strong setae distally on anterior margin; dactylus relatively long (especially in males) pressed against propodus, forming indistinct subchela in males, less so in females. Pereopod 6 slightly longer than P4, or P5; basis length 1.6x merus; carpus length 1.2x merus; propodus length 1.6x carpus. Pereopod 7; length about 0.7x P6; basis about twice length merus; carpus length about 1.4x merus; propodus length 1.8x carpus, slightly longer than basis. Peduncle of U1 does not exceed limit of peduncle of U2. Peduncles of U1–3 relatively broader in females (particularly U3). Uropod 3; peduncle width about 0.4x length in males. Telson pointed; length 0.6–0.7x peduncle of U3, marginally shorter in smaller specimens. Colour of living specimens not recorded. Remarks. I have not seen any specimens of this species but accept its validity based on the observations of Vinogradov (1957 & 1970). This species is distinguished from all its congeners by a combination of several characters; the inflated pereon (especially in females), the relatively long dactyls of pereopods 3–7 (especially pereopods 3 & 4), the structure of pereopod 5 becoming subchelate in males and the relatively short telson. It is most similar to L. clausi in the general habitus and relative lengths of the pereopoda but is readily distinguished by the slightly more inflated pereon and the relatively longer dactyls of pereopods 3–7. In the long dactyls of pereopods 3 & 4, it resembles L. longidactyla Vinogradov, 1964 but in that species the dactyls are relatively longer and pereopod 5 is not modified. It also resembles L. chelifera Vinogradov, 1970, especially in the modification of pereopod 5 but in that species the dactylus of pereopod 5 is not retractile or hooded and the structure of pereopods 3 & 4 is completely different. Distribution. Only known from the Kurile-Kamchatka region of the Pacific Ocean, from three specimens as detailed above., Published as part of Zeidler, Wolfgang, 2009, A review of the hyperiidean amphipod superfamily Lanceoloidea Bowman & Gruner, 1973 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea), pp. 1-117 in Zootaxa 2000 on pages 44-46, {"references":["Vinogradov, M. E. (1957) Hyperiids (Amphipoda) of the Northwest Pacific Ocean. 1. Tribe Hyperiidea Physosomata. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 20: 186 - 227. [In Russian]. English translation by American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington D. C., 1959, Marine Biology, 149 - 184.","Vinogradov, M. E. (1970) New data on the amphipods Hyperiidea Physosomata of the northwest part of the Pacific. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 86: 382 - 400. [In Russian]. English translation: In: Bogorov, V. G. (Ed.) Fauna of the Kurile-Kamchatka Trench and its Environment, pp. 398 - 418. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1972.","Vinogradov, M. E., Volkov, A. F. & Semenova, T. N. (1982) Amfipody-Giperiidy (Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) Mirovogo Okeanea. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR No. 132. Leningrad, 492 pp. [In Russian]. English translation, 1996, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington D. C., D. Siegel-Causey, Scientific Editor.","Vinogradov, M. E. (1964) Hyperiidea Physosomata from the northern part of the Indian Ocean. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 65, 107 - 151. [In Russian]."]}

Lanceola clausi gracilis Vinogradov Lanceola clausi gracilis Vinogradov 1956: 196. Vinogradov 1957: 195, fig. 5; 1962: 6–7, fig. 5a; 1964: 112. Hurley 1969: 33. Vinogradov 1970: 384 (table). Vinogradov et al. 1982: 71–72, fig. 18. De Broyer & Jazdzewski 1993: 109. Type material. This subspecies was described from three specimens collected from the West Bering Sea. The ZMMU has two syntypes (Mb-1042 & 1043). Diagnosis. According to Vinogradov (1956, 1957) and Vinogradov et al. (1982); like typical form except for the following. Length of sexually mature specimens 9–11 mm. Pleonites and urosomites are relatively broader. Pereopod 7; carpus is shorter than merus. Telson is relatively longer, almost as long as peduncle of U3. Additionally, in sexually mature males, the callynophore of A1 is particularly broad and richly pubescent on the anterior margin. Remarks. I have not seen any specimens of this subspecies but accept its validity based on the observations of Vinogradov (1956, 1957) and Vinogradov et al. (1982). Distribution. Known mainly from colder waters having been recorded from the north-west Pacific north of 40ºN and Antarctic waters. Vinogradov (1964) also recorded two specimens from the mid-Indian Ocean. Vinogradov et al. (1982) regard it one of the deepest water hyperiideans, possibly inhabiting only the abyssopelagic zone (deeper than 2500–3000 m)., Published as part of Zeidler, Wolfgang, 2009, A review of the hyperiidean amphipod superfamily Lanceoloidea Bowman & Gruner, 1973 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea), pp. 1-117 in Zootaxa 2000 on page 37, {"references":["Vinogradov, M. E. (1956) Hyperiids (Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) of the western Bering Sea. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 35 (2), 194 - 218. [In Russian].","Vinogradov, M. E. (1957) Hyperiids (Amphipoda) of the Northwest Pacific Ocean. 1. Tribe Hyperiidea Physosomata. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 20: 186 - 227. [In Russian]. English translation by American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington D. C., 1959, Marine Biology, 149 - 184.","Hurley, D. E. (1969) Amphipoda Hyperiidea. In: ' Antarctic Map Folio Series', Folio 11, Distribution of selected groups of marine invertebrates in waters south of 35 ° S Latitude. Pp. 32 - 34, sheets 1 - 2. American Geographical Society.","Vinogradov, M. E. (1970) New data on the amphipods Hyperiidea Physosomata of the northwest part of the Pacific. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 86: 382 - 400. [In Russian]. English translation: In: Bogorov, V. G. (Ed.) Fauna of the Kurile-Kamchatka Trench and its Environment, pp. 398 - 418. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1972.","Vinogradov, M. E., Volkov, A. F. & Semenova, T. N. (1982) Amfipody-Giperiidy (Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) Mirovogo Okeanea. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR No. 132. Leningrad, 492 pp. [In Russian]. English translation, 1996, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington D. C., D. Siegel-Causey, Scientific Editor.","Vinogradov, M. E. (1964) Hyperiidea Physosomata from the northern part of the Indian Ocean. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii Akademiya Nauk SSSR 65, 107 - 151. [In Russian]."]}

Conferva reticulata Linnaeus, Species Plantarum 2: 1165. 1753. "Habitat in Europae fluviis ad eorum littora." RCN: 8385. Lectotype (Irvine in Spencer & al. in Taxon, in press): [icon] " Conferva reticulata " in Dillenius, Hist. Musc.: 20, t. 4, f. 14. 1741 (see above, right). - Voucher: Herb. Dillenius (OXF). Current name: Hydrodictyon reticulatum (L.) Lagerh. (Hydrodictyaceae)., Published as part of Jarvis, Charlie, 2007, Chapter 7: Linnaean Plant Names and their Types (part C), pp. 370-473 in Order out of Chaos. Linnaean Plant Types and their Types, London :Linnaean Society of London in association with the Natural History Museum on page 436, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.291971

Genre ATRACTOMORPHA Saussure, 1862 Les espèces de ce genre ressemblent à celles du précédent, avec la tête plus conique et les élytres plus allongés et pointus. Trois sont présentes au Nimba sur les quatre connues d’Afrique de l’Ouest., Published as part of Roy, Roger, 2003, Les Acridiens du Nimba et de sa région, pp. 311-392 in Mémoires du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle 190 on page 321

Atractomorpha occidentalis Kevan & Chen, 1969 Atractomorpha occidentalis Kevan & Chen, 1969: 170. Type mâle du Liberia, à Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec. Cette espèce était confondue auparavant avec Atractomorpha aberrans Karsch, 1888, décrite d’Angola et présente de l’est du Nigeria à la Zambie. A. occidentalis, quant à elle, est connue seulement de la Guinée, de la Sierra Leone, du Liberia et de la Côte d’Ivoire (Kevan & Chen 1969: 172-175). En dehors du mâle de Nion signalé par Chopard comme rufopunctata, cette espèce a été citée du Nimba par Dirsh (1963: 208) comme aberrans, tout du moins pour ce qui est de certains spécimens de Ziéla, repris par Kevan & Chen (1969: 173); il est d’ailleurs probable que les autres aussi, de Zouguépo et du camp du Yâ, non revus par Kevan & Chen, soient des occidentalis. Kevan & Chen signalent encore cette espèce de ‘‘Copopleu’’ (Gopoupleu), de ‘‘Haute Cavally’’ et de ‘‘Mt. Nimba N. E. 500- 700 m.’’ Pour ma part je lui rapporte sous toutes réserves une femelle prise près du marais du Yafélé (fauchage des arbustes, 25.V.1991, C. Girard), 1 juvénile femelle à l’avant-dernier stade capturé à Ziéla (M. Lamotte 1946), ainsi que 2 autres juvéniles pris à Yéalé par M. Condamin et moi-même (femelle à l’avant-dernier stade, 27.I.1959, et mâle au dernier stade, 3.II.1959). Les deux espèces rufopunctata et occidentalis semblent en fait avoir des écologies très semblables, avec peut-être une préférence forestière plus marquée pour la seconde, d’après ce que l’on sait de leur répartition., Published as part of Roy, Roger, 2003, Les Acridiens du Nimba et de sa région, pp. 311-392 in Mémoires du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle 190 on page 322, {"references":["KEVAN D. K. McE. & CHEN Y. K. 1969. - A revised synopsis of the genus Atractomorpha Saussure, 1862 (Orthoptera: Pyrgomorphidae) with an account of the African aberrans - group. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 48: 141 - 178.","DIRSH V. M. 1963. - Orthoptera Acridoidea (Second contribution), in La Reserve naturelle integrale du Mont Nimba, V. Memoires de l'Institut francais d'Afrique noire 66: 207 - 220."]}

Atractomorpha occidentalis Kevan & Chen, 1969 Atractomorpha occidentalis Kevan & Chen, 1969: 170. Type mâle du Liberia, à Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec. Cette espèce était confondue auparavant avec Atractomorpha aberrans Karsch, 1888, décrite d’Angola et présente de l’est du Nigeria à la Zambie. A. occidentalis, quant à elle, est connue seulement de la Guinée, de la Sierra Leone, du Liberia et de la Côte d’Ivoire (Kevan & Chen 1969: 172-175). En dehors du mâle de Nion signalé par Chopard comme rufopunctata, cette espèce a été citée du Nimba par Dirsh (1963: 208) comme aberrans, tout du moins pour ce qui est de certains spécimens de Ziéla, repris par Kevan & Chen (1969: 173); il est d’ailleurs probable que les autres aussi, de Zouguépo et du camp du Yâ, non revus par Kevan & Chen, soient des occidentalis. Kevan & Chen signalent encore cette espèce de ‘‘Copopleu’’ (Gopoupleu), de ‘‘Haute Cavally’’ et de ‘‘Mt. Nimba N. E. 500- 700 m.’’ Pour ma part je lui rapporte sous toutes réserves une femelle prise près du marais du Yafélé (fauchage des arbustes, 25.V.1991, C. Girard), 1 juvénile femelle à l’avant-dernier stade capturé à Ziéla (M. Lamotte 1946), ainsi que 2 autres juvéniles pris à Yéalé par M. Condamin et moi-même (femelle à l’avant-dernier stade, 27.I.1959, et mâle au dernier stade, 3.II.1959). Les deux espèces rufopunctata et occidentalis semblent en fait avoir des écologies très semblables, avec peut-être une préférence forestière plus marquée pour la seconde, d’après ce que l’on sait de leur répartition.