Tanycypris pellucida ( Klie, 1932 )

Nagler, Christina, Geist, Juergen & Matzke-Karasz, Renate, 2014, Revision of the genus Tanycypris (Ostracoda, Cypricercinae) with the description of Tanycypris alfonsi n. sp., and an identification key to the genus, Zootaxa 3821 (4), pp. 401-424 : 413-415

Tanycypris pellucida ( Klie, 1932)

( Figs 5B , 6B, 6G , 7D , 9 )

v * 1932 Dolerocypris pellucida Klie : 482–483, figs 63–65.

1947 Dolerocypris pellucida — Bronshtein: 165, fig. 58, 1–2.

1964 Dolerocypris pellucida — Petkovski: 166, figs 51–52.

partim 1972 Strandesia camaguinensis (Tressler) —Okubo: 10, fig. 1 d–r.

v 1981 Strandesia camaguinensis (Tressler) —Victor & Fernando: 114–116.

1981 Tanycypris pellucida — Victor & Fernando: 114–116.

1984 Tanycypris pellucida — Broodbakker: 16, 18, 21–23.

2004 Strandesia camaguinensis (Tressler) —Okubo: 57, fig. 18a,b,l-n.

Diagnosis. L = 1.36–1.46 mm, H = 0.53–0.63 mm, W = 0.34–0.42 mm; greatest width in anterior to the middle. Carapace in dorsal view lanceolate, in lateral view elongated. Valves transparent, thin, indistinctly pigmented, yellowish-green. Posterior area with roof-tile like structure ( Fig. 9A ). Dorsal margin almost straight, ventral margin slightly concave. Inner lamella in anterior and posterior region wide ( Fig. 9B ). Anterior and posterior margin rounded.

A1 with Wouters organ, with a dorsal subapical seta on the first segment of A1 and with Rome organ on the third segment of A1 ( Fig. 5B ).

T1 with two a-setae, two b-setae, c-seta and d-seta ( Fig. 6G , 9C ).

T2 with longer d1 than d2.

CR ( Fig. 6B ). CR attachment relatively thin, slightly curved with a long, strong db and a short, stout, curved vb ( Fig. 7D ) ( Klie 1932; Tressler 1937; Bronshtein 1947; Petkovski 1964; Okubo 1972; Victor & Fernando 1981; Broodbakker 1984).

History. Klie (1932) described Dolerocypris pellucida and deposited the material (No. CR—1071) in the collection of the ZMK. Bronshtein (1947) found D. pellucida in samples from rice-fields of Chuppanata ( Kazakhstan) and referred to the description of Klie (1932). Petkovski (1964) reported D. pellucida from rice-fields in Macedonia. Victor & Fernando (1981) synonymized Dolerocypris pellucida ( Klie, 1932) with Strandesia camaguinensis ( Tressler, 1937) and Strandesia camaguinensis sensu Okubo 1972 . They transferred Dolerocypris pellucida to Tanycypris —a view that was followed by Broodbakker (1984).

Tressler (1937) described Strandesia camaguinensis based on material from a ditch in Camaguin Island and deposited the holotype (No. 71512) in the NMNH; however, the valve characters cannot be reliably studied because the valves have been embedded together with the dissected appendages. The valves are therefore compressed and partly broken .

Okubo’s (1972) Strandesia camaguinensis from Okayama is dubious. The valves in Okubo (1972: fig. 1a–c) show a much higher congruence with those of T. siamensis Savatenalinton & Martens ( Savatenalinton & Martens 2009a: fig. 8A) than with Tressler’s drawings of Strandesia camaguinensis (= Tanycypris pellucida Klie 1932 ). On the other hand, the appendages in Okubo (1972) seem to originate from Strandesia camaguinensis (diagram and description of the CR and the CR attachment). Possibly, Okubo illustrated the valves from material he found in Okayama (= Tanycypris siamensis ) and the appendages of Strandesia camaguinensis (= Tanycypris pellucida ). Chang et al. (2012), already considered the valves Okubo illustrated to belong to T. siamensis rather than to T. pellucida (“Okubo’s [species] more closely resemble T. siamensis rather than Klie’s original description of T. pellucida , which has much narrower calcified inner lamellae" ( Chang et al. 2012: 8)). The view of Chang et al. (2012) is fully supported by our study.

Similar species. Tanycypris pellucida can be mistaken for T. alfonsi n. sp. and for T. siamensis (see T. alfonsi n. sp.). Tanycypris pellucida differs from T. siamensis in the presence of two b-setae, and one c-seta on T1 (one bseta, no c-seta in T. siamensis ) and in the presence of a dorsal subapical seta on the first segment of A1 (absent in T. siamensis ).

Remarks. After re-examination of the holotypes of Tanycypris pellucida and Strandesia camaguinensis , we agree with Victor & Fernando (1981) that Strandesia camaguinensis Tressler, 1937 is a junior synonym of Tanycypris pellucida ( Klie, 1932) .

Figures

FIGURE 5. First antennae. A, Tanycypris centa (after Chang et al. 2012); B, T. pellucida; C, T. siamensis (after Savatenalinton & Martens 2009a); D, N. obtusa; E, T. madagascarensis. Scale bar = 100 µm for A–E.

FIGURE 6. Caudal rami and first thoracopod. A, CR Nealecypris obtusa; B, CR Tanycypris pellucida; C, CR T. siamensis (after Savatenalinton & Martens 2009a); D, CR T. centa; E, CR T. madagascarensis; F, T1 (female) N. obtusa; G, T1 (female) T. pellucida; H, T1 (female) T. siamensis (after Savatenalinton & Martens 2009a); I, T1 (female) T. centa (after Chang et al. 2012); J, T1 (male) T. madagascarensis. Scale bar = 100 µm for A–J.

FIGURE 7. Caudal ramus attachments. A, Nealecypris obtusa; B, Tanycypris madagascarensis; C, T. centa; D, T. pellucida; E, T. siamensis (after Savatenalinton & Martens 2009a). Scale bar = 100 µm for A–E.

FIGURE 9. Tanycypris pellucida. A, right valve external view (SEM); B, left valve internal view (SEM); C, T1 (light microscope).