150 



I. PETRESCU 



protopod, palp with 2 filaments. Maxilla 2 with two endites, fine 

 simple setae on endites and outer margins of protopod. Basis of 

 maxilliped 1 with an outer endite not exceeding merus, carpus with 

 flattened hand-like setae on outer margin of carpus, rounded, en- 

 larged dactylus. Basis of maxilliped 2, longest article, merus bulky, 

 carpus longer than all articles excepting basis, with short plumose 

 setae on outer margin, dactylus with an apical claw. Maxilliped 3 

 with short inner process. Exopods on maxilliped 3 and pereopods 1 - 

 2 in females and on maxilliped 3 and pereopods 1-4 in males. 

 Uropod peduncle much longer than pleonite 6 and its rami, uropod 

 exopod basal article normal, endopod as long as, or slightly longer 

 than exopod. 



Gender. Neuter. 



Additional species. Schizocuma calmani (Stebbing, 1912), S. 

 molossa (Zimmer, 1907), S. spinoculatum (Jones, 1984), 5. spinosum 

 (Jones, 1984). 



Remarks. Bacescu (1972) considered Schizocuma to be distin- 

 guishable from Cumella only by the separated siphons and 

 slenderness and elongation of the body and appendages. Jones 

 (1984) argued that there is a gradation in body and appendage form 

 and there are not sufficient criteria to recognise Schizocuma as a 

 separate genus. Watling ( 1991 ) added to the characters presented by 

 Bacescu, including dorso-lateral pseudorostral lobes and unique 

 ocular lobe, and considered Schizocuma as a valid genus. The study 

 of the mandible and maxilliped 1 revealed that there are also 

 distinctive characters that clearly separate Schizocuma from Cumella: 

 pars incisiva of mandible with 4 teeth (versus 3 in Cumella), 

 dactylus of maxilliped 1 rounded and enlarged versus acuminate and 

 small in Cumella. These last characters and the separated 

 pseudorostral lobes and siphons are more similar to the Nannastacus 

 group (Nannastacus, Scherocumella, Schizotrema), but the others 

 (unique eye lobe, peduncle of antenna 1 without tubercle, maxilliped 

 2 with slender plumose setae on propodus, uropods with long 

 peduncles) are more like Cumella. Watling ( 1991 ) mentioned in the 

 list of the additional species of this genus the species Schizocuma 

 divisa (Jones, 1984). In my opinion this species belongs to the genus 

 Cumella (as described by Jones) because of its non-separated si- 

 phons, fairly short pleon and a uropodal peduncle 1 .5 longer than its 

 rami (shorter than in Schizocuma). 



Schizocuma spinoculatum (Jones, 1984) 



Figs 1,2 



Cumella spinoculata Jones, 1984: 219-220. 

 Schizocuma spinoculata Watling, 1991: 755. 

 Schizocuma spinoculatum Bacescu, 1992: 258-259. 



Description. To the original description I am adding add the 

 following morphological data on the immature male (not mentioned 

 by Jones). Antenna 1 (Fig. 1 A) with spine on 1 st article of peduncle, 

 2 nd article a little longer than 3 rd , accessory flagellum 2-articulate. 

 Antenna 2 (Fig. 1 B) characteristic for an older stage, with short 

 flagellum, but most articles well developed. Mandible (Fig. 1 C), 

 pars incisiva with 4 teeth, lacinia mobilis with 3 teeth, robust pars 

 molaris with a tooth-like process on its distal outer corner. Maxilla 

 1 (Fig. 1 D), protopod with 9 acuminate setae, palp with 2 unequal 

 filaments, the longest backwardly setulated in its proximal half. 

 Maxilla 2 (Fig. 1 E) with simple setae on endites that exceed 

 protopod and margins of protopod. Maxilliped 1 (Fig. 1 F), with 

 endite of basis not exceeding extremity of merus, with strong 

 plumose setae, acuminate setae and retinacula; flattened hand-like 

 setae on outer margin of carpus, with rounded extremity; propodus 



a little longer than dactylus (propodus/dactylus= 1.4), rounded and 

 enlarged dactylus with few apical setae. Maxilliped 2 (Fig. 1 G), 

 basis a third of the entire maxilliped, bulky merus, carpus, the 

 longest article excepting basis, propodus with plumose setae on 

 outer distal corner, dactylus as long as his strong claw. Maxilliped 3 

 (Fig. 2 A), basis, stronger than in female, with a very short inner 

 process. Pereopod 1 (Fig. 2 B), basis without spines as in female, 

 carpus as long as propodus. Pereopod 2 (Fig. 2 C), with stronger 

 basis, a stiff acuminate seta on outer distal corner of carpus (fine, 

 simple setae in female), dactylus a little longer than in female 

 (dactylus/propodus= 2.5). Pereopod 3 (Fig. 2 D), basis longer than 

 half of pereopod, dactylus with long terminal seta.Uropod (Fig. 2 E), 

 peduncle much longer than last pleonite (1.85) and its rami (1.80), 

 exopod a little shorter than endopod, with a terminal seta, endopod 

 with 4 short setae on inner margin and a terminal robust short one. 

 Jones (1984) description of the female is amended to include the 

 following details: Maxilliped 3 (Fig. 2 F), basis with short inner 

 process, merus also without any process, a little longer than dacty- 

 lus, dactylus with an apical, strong, claw, longer than the article. 

 Pereopod 1 (Fig. 2 G), basis shorter than half of the entire pereopod, 

 2 acuminate setae on distal outer corner, carpus shorter than propodus, 

 dactylus with a claw longer than it. Pereopod 2 (Fig. 2 G), basis 

 shorter than half of the entire pereopod, dactylus 2.4 times longer 

 than propodus, with short simple terminal setae. 



Schizocuma vemae Bacescu, 1972 



Figs 3, 4 



Schizocuma vemae, Bacescu, 1972: 246. 

 Cumella vemae, Jones, 1984: 214 

 Schizocuma vemae, Watling, 1991: 755 

 Schizocuma vemae, Bacescu, 1992: 258-259. 



Description . To the description of the female in Jones ( 1 984) the 

 following additional observations: Carapace (Fig. 3 A) with one 

 dorsal spine (up to 4 in Jones). Pereopod 1 (Fig. 3 B), basis shorter 

 than half of entire pereopod, carpus a little shorter than propodus, 

 dactylus shorter than its claw. Pereopod 2 (Fig. 3 C), basis shorter 

 than half of entire pereopod, a stiff acuminate seta on outer distal 

 corner of carpus as long as propodus, dactylus 4.3 times longer than 

 propodus, with simple setae. Pereopod 3 (Fig. 3 D), with thin and 

 long articles, basis as long as half of entire pereopod, carpus 3.2 

 times longer than propodus, dactylus with a long terminal seta. 

 Uropod (Fig. 3 E), peduncle very long (4 times longer than last 

 pleonite), peduncle/rami = 2.5; exopod as long as endopod, with a 

 terminal seta, endopod with simple setae and subterminal acuminate 

 seta on inner margin and a terminal, thin acuminate seta. 



The description of an immature male by Bacescu (1972) was also 

 incomplete. The following details are added: Antenna 1 (Fig. 3 F), 

 peduncle articles long and thin, 2 nd article longer than 3 rd , accessory 

 flagellum, 2-articulate, shorter than basal article of main flagellum. 

 Antenna 2 (Fig. 3 G), characteristic of an immature male. Mandible 

 (Fig. 3 H), pars incisiva with 4 teeth, lacinia mobilis with 3 teeth, 

 robust, truncated pars molaris with a tooth-like process. Maxilla 1 

 (Fig. 4 A), protopod with 9 acuminate setae, palp with 2 unequal 

 filaments, the longest one is backwardly setulated. Maxilla 2 (Fig. 4 

 B), as usual for the genus. Maxilliped 1 (Fig. 4 C), carpus with 

 flattened hand-like setae with acute extremity, propodus 3.3 times 

 longer than dactylus, dactylus with apical fine, small setae. Maxilliped 



2 (Fig. 4 D), with robust articles, as is usual for the genus. Pereopod 



3 (Fig. 4 E), carpus 2.5 times longer than propodus, dactylus with a 

 long, curved acuminate seta. Pereopod 4 (Fig. 4 F), basis thinner, 

 carpus longer than in the previous pair (3 times longer), dactylus 



