Copepoda name details
Sciaenophilidae Heegaard, 1966
1460954 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:1460954)
unaccepted > junior subjective synonym
Family
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
Not documented
Taxonomic remark Heegaard (1966) established a new family Sciaenophilidae based on his interpretation that only the first pedigerous remnant...
Taxonomic remark Heegaard (1966) established a new family Sciaenophilidae based on his interpretation that only the first pedigerous remnant was fused with the cephalothrax, the second and third segments remaining separate from it. However, the first three pedigerous segments are fused to the cephalothorax as in other genera of the caligids, and therefore the family proposed by Heegard cannot be condsidered valid. Dojiri, 1983. p. 327-332, and considers it a Caligidae [details]
Walter, T.C.; Boxshall, G. (2024). World of Copepods Database. Sciaenophilidae Heegaard, 1966. Accessed at: https://www.marinespecies.org/copepoda/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1460954 on 2024-04-23
Date
action
by
basis of record
Heegaard, P.E. (1966). Parasitic copepods from Texas. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistoriske Forening, Copenhagen 129: 187-197, figs. 1-23. [details] Available for editors 
additional source Dojiri, M. (1983). Revision of the genera of the Caligidae (Siphonostomatoida), copepods predominantly parasitic on marine fishes. Ph.D. Thesis, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 721pp. [details] Available for editors
additional source Dojiri, M. (1983). Revision of the genera of the Caligidae (Siphonostomatoida), copepods predominantly parasitic on marine fishes. Ph.D. Thesis, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 721pp. [details] Available for editors
From editor or global species database
Taxonomic remark Heegaard (1966) established a new family Sciaenophilidae based on his interpretation that only the first pedigerous remnant was fused with the cephalothrax, the second and third segments remaining separate from it. However, the first three pedigerous segments are fused to the cephalothorax as in other genera of the caligids, and therefore the family proposed by Heegard cannot be condsidered valid. Dojiri, 1983. p. 327-332, and considers it a Caligidae [details]