Cyathura (Stygocyathura) 33 



mentation usually present. Pereopod 1, propodal palm armed with tubercle. 

 Pleopod 1 , protopod with retinaculae. Uropodal exopod articulation relative 

 elongate along lateral margin of sympod; exopod well developed, ovate. 

 Pleonite 6 dorsally demarked from telson. Marine or estuarine forms. 



Cyathura (Cyathura) cubana Negoescu, 1979 

 Figure 11A,B 



DIAGNOSIS Ovigerous 9 : 7.0 mm. Antennular flagellum of two articles. An- 

 tennal flagellum of one article. Pereopod 1, propodal palm with rounded lobe 

 in proximal half Maxillipedal palp with distal article 0.34 times length of 

 proximal article; small rounded endite present. Dorsal pigmentation consist- 

 ing of irregular brown mottling. S: 5.5 mm. Antennular flagellum of four 

 articles. Antennal flagellum of three articles. Pereopod 1, propodal palm with 

 rounded lobe in proximal half Copulatory stylet elongate-cylindrical, api- 

 cally narrowed and flexed. 



RECORDS Cuba, in mangroves, 2.5-7.0 m; Salt Creek, Belize, in man- 

 groves, 1.5 m. 



Cyathura (Stygocyathura) Botosaneanu and Stock, 1982 



DIAGNOSIS Eye and body pigmentation absent. Body sparsely pilose or set- 

 ose. Tendency toward elongation of some appendages, especially propodus of 

 pereopods 2-7. Pereopod 1, propodal palm lacking strong tubercle. Pleopod 

 1, protopod lacking retinaculae. Pleonite 6 fused with telson, not dorsally 

 demarked. Uropodal exopod with very short articulation on sympod, not 

 adpressed dorsally to telson. Cave or hypogean forms. 



REMARKS The ten species oi Stygocyathura from the area covered in this work 

 are morphologically very similar, with specific differences, although real, 

 being very subtle. A dichotomous key would be cumbersome and require 

 considerable dissection of mouthparts. The copulatory stylet of the male pro- 

 vides a valuable specific feature but males are not always available. Instead 

 of a key, we have provided a list of species with their total lengths and lo- 

 calities (Table 1). Given the very restricted distribution of these cave species, 

 material from localities not listed here should be treated as potentially un- 

 described, and the material compared with descriptions, especially those of 

 Botosaneanu and Stock (1982). 



