| Intro | | Search taxa | | Browse taxa | | Distributions | | Terminology | | References | | Statistics | | Online sources | | Tutorial | | Log in |
WoRMS taxon detailsApocyclops Lindberg, 1942
346765 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:346765)
accepted
Genus
marine, brackish, fresh,
Lindberg, K. (1942). Cyclopides (Crustacés Copépodes) de l'Inde, XIV. Notes sur quelques membres du sous-genre Metacyclops Kiefer. <em>Records of the Indian Museum, Calcutta.</em> 44(2):139-190, figs.1-12. (27-viii-1942). [details] Available for editors
 [request]
Taxonomic remark Comments from Janet Reid
In 1942, Lindberg proposed the subgenus Apocyclops to contain the 3 species Cyclops (Apocyclops)...
Taxonomic remark Comments from Janet Reid In 1942, Lindberg proposed the subgenus Apocyclops to contain the 3 species Cyclops (Apocyclops) dengizicus Cyclops (A.) panamensis Marsh Cyclops (A.) royi Lindberg. In this paper, Lindberg provided a redescription of dengizicus from India. At the end of this redescription, he discussed Kiefer's previous assignment of this species to Kiefer's subgenus Metacyclops, and wrote that "The animals having the article of the fifth foot strongly broadened, bearing a well-developed inner spine and a long outer seta, inserted far from each other due to the width of the article, thereby presenting a configuration so aberrant from the other animals assigned to the subgenus Metacyclops of Kiefer that it appears quite messy to maintain them among these, because it is exactly the fifth foot that serves as a basis for the establishment of the different subgenera of the genus Cyclops. Gurney has previously remarked on this failure of logic. In order to continue the use of Greek prefixes, I propose the term Apocyclops to designate the new subgenus in which it is appropriate to group the 3 species known to the present with a fifth foot resembling that of C. dengizicus Lepechkine, the two others being C. (A.) panamensis Marsh and C. (A.) royi Lindberg." (my translation. Reference: Lindberg, K. 1942. Cyclopides (Crustacés Copépodes) de l'Inde. XIV. Notes sur quelques membres du sous-genre Metacyclops Kiefer. Records of the Indian Museum 44 (2): 139-190. text on pp. 140-142) You can see by this wording that Lindberg did not designate a type species for Apocyclops. Lindberg raised Apocyclops to genus level in 1954, but neither then nor in subsequent papers on this group did he (or anybody else) ever designate a type. However, since that time, authors have accepted the oldest species (dengizicus) as the type. written by Janet W. Reid, March 2016 [details] Taxonomic remark Lindberg, K. (1942). Cyclopides (Crustacés Copépodes) de l'Inde, XIV. Notes sur quelques membres du sous-genre...
Taxonomic remark Lindberg, K. (1942). Cyclopides (Crustacés Copépodes) de l'Inde, XIV. Notes sur quelques membres du sous-genre Metacyclops Kiefer. Records of the Indian Museum, Calcutta. 44(2):139-190, figs.1-12. (27-viii-1942). p. 139 - redescribed Cyclops (Apocyclops) Lepechkine. P. 141-142 -- "These animals have the article of the fifth foot greatly expanded, bearing a well-developed inner spine and a long outer seta, inserted far from each other due to the width of the article, thereby presenting a configuration so aberrant from the other animals ranked in the sub-genus Metacyclops of Kiefer that it seems quite out of order to maintain them among these, since it is precisely the fifth foot that serves as the basis for the establishment of the various subgenera of Cyclops. Gurney has already remarked on this lack of logic. In order to continue the use of Greek prefixes I propose the term Apocyclops ro designate the new subgenus in which it is convenient to group the 3 species known up to the present with a fifth foot resembling that of C. dengizicus, the two others being C. (A.) panamensis Marsh and C (A.) royi Lindberg." so, here Lindberg provided a diagnosis but not a type species, exactly, unless you want to take C. (A) dengizicus Lepechkine as the type. I suppose this is the general consensus, since Dussart & Defaye (2006, World Directory, p. 228) listed A. dengizicus first among members of the genus. Lindberg, K. (1961). Remarques sur le genre Metacyclops (Kiefer, 1927) et description d'un Metacyclops nouveau du Portugal. Kunglige Fysiografiska Sällskapets i Lund Förhandlingar 31(14):133-145. p. 134 - continues after his diagnosis of genus Metacyclops: "This definition excludes the forms dengizicus -- panamensis. In 1942 (Rec. Ind. Mus., XLIV(2) 141-142) I have defined this group, proposing to separate the species corresponding to the definition in a new sub-genus, that of Apocyclops. However, the genus Apocyclops was not recognized by Kiefer (Metacyclops distans n. sp. Ergebn. deutsch. limnol. Venezuela-Exped., I, 256-258, 1956). Needless to say that the Apocyclops are characterized above all by the widening of the P5 article, so that the two appendices occur inserted far from each other." [details] Taxonomic remark Comments of Geoff Boxshall Apocyclops is being proposed as a new subgenus. After 1930, it "must be accompanied by the...
Taxonomic remark Comments of Geoff Boxshall Apocyclops is being proposed as a new subgenus. After 1930, it "must be accompanied by the fixation of a type species..." Lindberg is clearly using C. dengizicus as the basis for comparison - and lists it first etc. It isn't an explicit statement but it has been followed by subsequent workers (e.g. Dussart & Defaye's catalogues). We should probably put a taxonomic note about this. According to Article 69.1.1. any subsequent statement designating one of the originally included nominal species as type is to be taken as valid. There's a chance that such a statement exists out there but I don't know the literature well enough. With regard to the raising of rank from subgenus to genus: I looked in the Chullasorn et al (2008) paper and in the intro it says of Apocyclops "and later raised its rank (Lindberg 1955b)." This predates the 1961 paper. The only statement about the rank is indirect in that 1955 paper - which provides .....a key to species of "the genus Apocyclops" (the original is in French). So this does refer to it as a genus. I assume the 1961 paper is a restatement of the rank - in response to Kiefer (1956) not recognizing the genus. [details]
Walter, T.C.; Boxshall, G. (2024). World of Copepods Database. Apocyclops Lindberg, 1942. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=346765 on 2024-09-23
Date action by
original description
Lindberg, K. (1942). Cyclopides (Crustacés Copépodes) de l'Inde, XIV. Notes sur quelques membres du sous-genre Metacyclops Kiefer. <em>Records of the Indian Museum, Calcutta.</em> 44(2):139-190, figs.1-12. (27-viii-1942). [details] Available for editors
[request] additional source Monchenko, V.I. (1974). Shchelepnoroti tsiklopodiny, tsiklopi (Cyclopidae). Gnathostoma, Cyclopoida, (Cyclopidae). <em>Fauna Ukrainy, Fauna of Ukraine, Vidavnitstvo Naukova Dumka, Kiev.</em> 27(3):1-452, figs. 1-142. (28-vi-1974, Ukrainian). page(s): 375-376 [details] Available for editors [request] ecology source Dexter, D.M. (1993). Salinity tolerance of the copepod Apocyclops dengizicus (Lepeschkin, 1900), a key food chain organism in the Salton Sea, California. Hydrobiologia 267:203-209. [details] Available for editors [request]  Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Taxonomic remark Comments from Janet ReidIn 1942, Lindberg proposed the subgenus Apocyclops to contain the 3 species Cyclops (Apocyclops) dengizicus Cyclops (A.) panamensis Marsh Cyclops (A.) royi Lindberg. In this paper, Lindberg provided a redescription of dengizicus from India. At the end of this redescription, he discussed Kiefer's previous assignment of this species to Kiefer's subgenus Metacyclops, and wrote that "The animals having the article of the fifth foot strongly broadened, bearing a well-developed inner spine and a long outer seta, inserted far from each other due to the width of the article, thereby presenting a configuration so aberrant from the other animals assigned to the subgenus Metacyclops of Kiefer that it appears quite messy to maintain them among these, because it is exactly the fifth foot that serves as a basis for the establishment of the different subgenera of the genus Cyclops. Gurney has previously remarked on this failure of logic. In order to continue the use of Greek prefixes, I propose the term Apocyclops to designate the new subgenus in which it is appropriate to group the 3 species known to the present with a fifth foot resembling that of C. dengizicus Lepechkine, the two others being C. (A.) panamensis Marsh and C. (A.) royi Lindberg." (my translation. Reference: Lindberg, K. 1942. Cyclopides (Crustacés Copépodes) de l'Inde. XIV. Notes sur quelques membres du sous-genre Metacyclops Kiefer. Records of the Indian Museum 44 (2): 139-190. text on pp. 140-142) You can see by this wording that Lindberg did not designate a type species for Apocyclops. Lindberg raised Apocyclops to genus level in 1954, but neither then nor in subsequent papers on this group did he (or anybody else) ever designate a type. However, since that time, authors have accepted the oldest species (dengizicus) as the type. written by Janet W. Reid, March 2016 [details] Taxonomic remark Lindberg, K. (1942). Cyclopides (Crustacés Copépodes) de l'Inde, XIV. Notes sur quelques membres du sous-genre Metacyclops Kiefer. Records of the Indian Museum, Calcutta. 44(2):139-190, figs.1-12. (27-viii-1942). p. 139 - redescribed Cyclops (Apocyclops) Lepechkine. P. 141-142 -- "These animals have the article of the fifth foot greatly expanded, bearing a well-developed inner spine and a long outer seta, inserted far from each other due to the width of the article, thereby presenting a configuration so aberrant from the other animals ranked in the sub-genus Metacyclops of Kiefer that it seems quite out of order to maintain them among these, since it is precisely the fifth foot that serves as the basis for the establishment of the various subgenera of Cyclops. Gurney has already remarked on this lack of logic. In order to continue the use of Greek prefixes I propose the term Apocyclops ro designate the new subgenus in which it is convenient to group the 3 species known up to the present with a fifth foot resembling that of C. dengizicus, the two others being C. (A.) panamensis Marsh and C (A.) royi Lindberg." so, here Lindberg provided a diagnosis but not a type species, exactly, unless you want to take C. (A) dengizicus Lepechkine as the type. I suppose this is the general consensus, since Dussart & Defaye (2006, World Directory, p. 228) listed A. dengizicus first among members of the genus. Lindberg, K. (1961). Remarques sur le genre Metacyclops (Kiefer, 1927) et description d'un Metacyclops nouveau du Portugal. Kunglige Fysiografiska Sällskapets i Lund Förhandlingar 31(14):133-145. p. 134 - continues after his diagnosis of genus Metacyclops: "This definition excludes the forms dengizicus -- panamensis. In 1942 (Rec. Ind. Mus., XLIV(2) 141-142) I have defined this group, proposing to separate the species corresponding to the definition in a new sub-genus, that of Apocyclops. However, the genus Apocyclops was not recognized by Kiefer (Metacyclops distans n. sp. Ergebn. deutsch. limnol. Venezuela-Exped., I, 256-258, 1956). Needless to say that the Apocyclops are characterized above all by the widening of the P5 article, so that the two appendices occur inserted far from each other." [details] Taxonomic remark Comments of Geoff Boxshall Apocyclops is being proposed as a new subgenus. After 1930, it "must be accompanied by the fixation of a type species..." Lindberg is clearly using C. dengizicus as the basis for comparison - and lists it first etc. It isn't an explicit statement but it has been followed by subsequent workers (e.g. Dussart & Defaye's catalogues). We should probably put a taxonomic note about this. According to Article 69.1.1. any subsequent statement designating one of the originally included nominal species as type is to be taken as valid. There's a chance that such a statement exists out there but I don't know the literature well enough. With regard to the raising of rank from subgenus to genus: I looked in the Chullasorn et al (2008) paper and in the intro it says of Apocyclops "and later raised its rank (Lindberg 1955b)." This predates the 1961 paper. The only statement about the rank is indirect in that 1955 paper - which provides .....a key to species of "the genus Apocyclops" (the original is in French). So this does refer to it as a genus. I assume the 1961 paper is a restatement of the rank - in response to Kiefer (1956) not recognizing the genus. [details]
|
