Cubaris Brandt, 1833

Lillemets, B. & Wilson, G., 2002, Armadillidae (Crustacea: Isopoda) from Lord Howe Island: New Taxa and Biogeography, Records of the Australian Museum 54, pp. 71-98 : 90

Cubaris Brandt

Cubaris Brandt, 1833: 189 .

Armadillo , section VI, Budde-Lund, 1904: 118

Type species. Cubaris murina Brandt, 1833 .

Diagnosis. Frontal lamina not raised above vertex, midline not indented; antennae slender; dorsal surface smooth, rugose or tuberculate, but without spines; epimera tergite junctions 1–6 posterior margins more or less incurved, tergite 7 junction straight or shallowly incurved; epimera 1 posterior margin entire, not cleft; epimera 1 endolobe small, not visible dorsally, not forming continuation of epimera margin; epimera 2 endolobe not projecting beyond epimera margin; tergite 1 length 0.2–0.25 pereon length; pleotelson sides parallel or constricted, dorsal surface not keeled, posterior margin bluntly rounded, straight or shallowly incurved, not deeply incised in midline; pleopods width greater than 0.3 pleon width; proximal portion length less than 0.3 protopod length, inner margin near exopod insertion smoothly concave.

Remarks. Cubaris is a large genus comprising over 100 species worldwide, 29 of which have been described from the Australia-South Pacific region. Schmalfuss (1983) considers it to be a “heterogeneous and artificial group defined by symplesiomorphic characters”. The group is not monophyletic and is in need of a comprehensive global revision.

The genus was created by Brandt (1833) for the pantropical species C. murina . Budde-Lund (1904) redefined the genus as sections of his genus Spherillo . Jackson (1935) later identified Verhoeff’s (1926) genus Nesodillo as a synonym of Cubaris , which was retained by Green (1961). Taiti et al. (1998) re-established Nesodillo as a distinct genus and assigned N. sarasini Verhoeff, 1926 as the type species. Several species originally placed in Nesodillo by Verhoeff may not belong here, but in Cubaris ( Green, 1961) . A revision of Cubaris by Green (1961) includes a key to species. A comprehensive revision of the entire genus, however, is needed. The above diagnosis is derived from Green (1961). The type specimens of Cubaris murina have been lost, preventing a unambiguous diagnosis. The status of C. murina should be stabilised by selection of a neotype, a task that is not within the scope of this paper. Cubaris dhaliwali does not fit any other described genera but does belong in the same group as species previously placed in Cubaris . Regardless of the best composition of Cubaris and without being able to examine the type material of C. murina , C. dhaliwali n.sp., fits the existing generic diagnosis.