166 



I. PETRESCU 



2 articles and 2 plumose and one simple setae. Mandible (Fig. 14 C 

 ), pars incisiva and lacinia mobilis with 4 teeth . Maxilla 1 (Fig. 14 

 D), palp with 2 glabrous filaments. Maxilla 2 (Fig. 14 E), a row of 

 fine, small setae between outer margin of protopod and endites. 

 Maxilliped 1 (Fig. 14 F), carpus with hand-like flattened setae with 

 6 denticles, more fully developed and rounded dactylus. Maxilliped 

 2 (Fig. 14 G), with robust articles, propodus with plumose setae. 

 Maxilliped 3 (Fig. 15 A), basis with a very short inner process, 

 setules on outer margins of basis and carpus. Pereopods3-5 (Fig. 15 

 D-F), basis with teeth on inner margin, 3 rd pair with longer basis, 5 lh 

 one with longer carpus, short dactylus with long curved terminal 

 seta. 



Remarks. Antenna 1 (Fig. 14 A) as described in Jones (1984). 

 Pereopod 1 (Fig. 1 5 B) has teeth on outer margin and 2 nd pair (Fig. 15 

 C) has teeth on inner margin (versus glabrous in Jones). 



Key for the identification of Styloptocuma species 



1 Eye lobe not exceeding pseudorostrum 2 



Eye lobe exceeding pseudorostrum 14 



2 Pseudorostrum passes beyond the level of the anterior corner .... 3 



Pseudorostrum not or scarcely passing beyond the level of the 

 anterior corner 5 



3 Rows of spines on lateral sides of pleon 4 



Without spines on lateral sides of pleon 



10 



11 



12 



5. aculeatum (Jones, 1984) 



Spines on pseudorostrum. pereopods and uropods 



S. echinatum (Jones. 1984) 



No spines on pseudorostrum, pereopods and uropod 



5. erectum (Jones, 1984) 



Rows of spines on lateral sides of pleon 6 



Without spines on lateral sides of pleon 9 



Carapace with dorsal spines 7 



Carapace without dorsal spines 5. extans (Jones, 1984) 



Eye lobe reaching end of pseudorostrum 8 



Eye lobe not reaching end of pseudorostrum 



5. concinnum (Jones, 1984) 



Eye lobe with an apical spine S. cristatum (Jones, 1984) 



Eye lobe without apical spine S. formosum (Jones, 1984) 



Carapace with dorsal spines 10 



Carapace without spines 13 



Carapace with double rows of dorsal spines 



S. subductum (Jones, 1984) 



Carapace with a single row of spines 1 1 



Uropodal peduncle 2 x longer than 6th pleonite 12 



Uropodal peduncle less than 2 x longer than 6th pleonite 



S. acuminatum (Jones, 1984) 



Carapace and uropods with many spines 



1 3 Uropodal peduncle 2 x longer than 6th pleonit 



S. angustatum (Jones, 1984) 



Uropodal peduncle less than 2 x longer than 6th pleonite 



S. inermis (Ledoyer, 1997) 



14 Pseudorostrum long 15 



Pseudorostrum short S. longisipho (Jones, 1984) 



15 Two dorsal rows of spines on carapace 16 



One dorsal row of of spines on carapace 



5. egregium (Hansen, 1920) 



16 Body and uropods densely spinose, pereopods less serrated 



S. antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 



Body and uropods with fewer, shorter spines, pereopods more 

 serrated S. bishopi (Jones, 1984) 



PHYLQGENETIC REMARKS 



Both Schizocuma and Styloptocuma with mixed characters seem to 

 be earlier separated from the branch of Cumella group than the other 

 genera (Ahnyracuma Jones &Burbanck, 1 959, Atlantocuma Bacescu 

 & Muradian, 1974, Claudicuma Roccatagliata, 1981, Cumella Sars, 

 1865, Cumellopsis Caiman, 1905, Elasocumella Watling, 1991, 

 Platycuma Caiman, 1905) and evolved in specific ways in the deep 

 sea preserving more characters common with Nannastacus group 

 (Nannastacus Bate, 1 865, Scherocumella Watling, 1 99 1 , Schizotrema 

 Caiman, 1911), characters absent to the other deep sea mentioned 

 genera of the Cumella group. Styloptocuma seems to be closer to 

 Nannastacus within the group of Cumella than Schizocuma. 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. I am grateful to Miranda Lowe from the Depart- 

 ment of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, London, for the loan of the 

 studied material; to the late Acad. Mihai Bacescu for the valuable references 

 and discussions; to the late Norman Jones for suggestions regarding this 

 study and for suggesting a suitable institution for depositing the materials 

 studied by him; and to Aurora Dinu who inked the drawings. 



REFERENCES 



S. dayde (Jones, 1984) 



Carapace and uropods with fewer spines 



S. gracillimum (Caiman, 1905) 



Bacescu, M. 1972. Archaeocuma and Schizocuma, new genera of Cumacea from the 



American tropical waters. Revue Roumaine Biologie.Serie Zoologie, 17 (4). 241— 



250. 

 1992. Cumacea 11 (Fam. Nannastacidae, Diastylidae, Pseudocumatidae, 



Gynodiastylidae et Ceratocumatidae), 8, 175 - 468. In: Gruner. H. E. & Holthuis L. 



B. (eds) Crustaceorum Catalogus. SPB Academic Publishing. The Hague. 

 & Muradian, Z. 1974. Campylaspenis, Styloptocuma, Atlantocuma, new genera 



of Cumacea from the deep waters of the Atlantic. Revue Roumaine Biologic Biologie 



Animate, 19(2), 71-78. 

 Holthuis, L.B. 1990. Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian. 1974 (Crustacea, Cumacea): 



proposed conservation with designation of 5. antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 as 



the type species Bulletin Zoological Nomenclature, 49 (4). 264. 

 Jones, N.S. 1984. The family Nannastacidae (Crustacea, Cumacea) from the deep 



Atlantic Bulletin British Museum (Natural History.) Zoology 46 (3), 207-289. 

 Ledoyer, M. 1983. Contribution a l'etude de l'ecologie de la faune vagile profonde de 



la Mediterranee nord-occidentale 2. Les Cumaces (Crustacea) Tethys, 11 (1), 77. 

 1997. Les Cumaces (Crustacea) des campagnes Eumeli 2., 3 et 4 au large du Cap 



Blanc (est Atlantique tropical) Journal Natural History, 31, 841-886. 

 Watling, L. 1991. Rediagnosis and revision of some Nannastacidae (Crustacea: 



Cumacea) Proceedings Biological Society Washington, 104 (4), 751-757. 



