SYSTEMATICS AND PHYLOGENY OF ZAUSODES 



89 



spinular rows as indicated in Fig. 1 OD; basis with a spinular row and 

 seta along palmar margin, with spinules along outer distal margin; 

 endopod represented by acutely recurved claw, spinulose along the 

 distal inner margin, with proximal accessory seta. 



PI (Fig. 10B) Rami prehensile; coxa with spinular rows along 

 inner and outer margins; basis with pinnate seta subdistally at outer 

 margin and spine near articulation with endopod; spinular rows 

 present along inner and outer margins and on anterior face. Exopod 

 3-segmented, 1.3 times as long as endopod (excluding apical ele- 

 ments); exp- 1 with distal pinnate seta and spinular rows along outer 

 margin; exp-2 elongate, 2.1 times as long as exp-1, with short, 

 slender inner seta distally and outer margin spinular row extending 

 to insertion of subdistal pinnate seta; exp-3 vestigial, largely incor- 

 porated into exp-2, with 2 geniculate spines and 2 claws. Endopod 

 2-segmented; enp-1 elongate, with outer spinular row; enp-2 0.3 

 times as long as enp-1, with outer spinular row and bearing genicu- 

 late spine, claw, and short, slender inner seta distally. 



P2-P4 (Figs 11A-C) with 3-segmented exopods; endopod 3- 

 segmented in P2 and 2-segmented in P3-P4 with the distal segment 

 comprised of two fused segments; indentations mark the plane of 

 fusion. Coxae with spinular rows at outer distal corner and posteriorly 

 near outer margin of P2. Bases with outer bipinnate spine (P2) or 

 naked seta (P3-P4), spinules, and a pore (P2-P3) near outer distal 

 corner. Endopods distinctly shorter than exopods. Spinular rows 

 present on posterior surface of P2-P4 terminal endopodal segments. 

 Spinular rows present on posterior surfaces of P4 exp- 1,-2, and -3 in 

 the paratype. Pores present as illustrated (Figs 11A-C). Seta and 

 spine formula of P2-P4 as in Table 1 . 



P5 (Fig. 1 ID) biramous, not fused medially. Baseoendopod with 

 numerous anterior surface and marginal spinular rows; endopodal 

 lobe triangular, with 3 bipinnate and 2 pinnate setae; outer basal seta 

 slender and arising from cylindrical process. Exopod 1.2 times as 

 long as wide (excluding distal spines) with numerous anterior, 

 posterior and marginal spinular rows, with 1 inner, 1 apical and 3 

 outer bipinnate spines with flagellate tips. A posterior margin row of 

 spinules on the baseoendopod was left out of the illustration to 

 increase clarity. 



MALE. Body length (from Bergen museum paratypes) measured 

 from anterior margin of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami: 

 x = 506 urn (n = 2); without rostrum and caudal rami: x = 454 um (n 

 = 2). Body width: x = 264 |im (n - 2). Not all sensillae shown in 

 habitus views (Figs 12A-B). Sexual dimorphism in body size, 

 rostrum, antennule, P2 endopod, P5, and urosome segmentation 

 (Figs 12A-B). The P6 could not be observed. 



Rostrum (Fig. 1 2B ) oval, twice as wide as long; with two sensillae 

 anteriorly and one sensilla on each mediolateral margin; with mid- 

 dorsal pore. 



Antennule (Figs 12E-F) 6-segmented, chirocer; segment 5 not 

 conspicuously swollen; segments 3 and 5 longest; with geniculation 

 between segments 5 and 6. First segment with several spinular rows 

 along anterior margin; segment 5 with aesthetasc (55 um long) and 

 anterior distal corner produced into blunt apophysis; with setal 

 formula 1-[1], 2-[l], 3-[9], 4-[9], 5-[8 + (1 + ae) + 4 modified], 6- 

 [6 + acrothek]. 



P2 (Fig. 12D) as in 9 except for endopod. Endopod 2-segmented 

 with the distal segment derived by fusion of two segments. Enp-1 

 with outer row of spinules. Enp-2 with pronounced indentations 

 marking the plane of fusion and continuous cuticle between fused 

 segments; with spinulose outer margin; inner margin with 3 pinnate 

 setae; distal margin with short distally pinnate spine and long 

 bipinnate spine; posterior face with spinules. Pore present as illus- 

 trated (Fig. 12D). 



P5 (Fig. 12C) baseoendopods fused medially forming trans- 

 versely elongate plate (one half of plate illustrated); each side with 

 2 setae, slender outer basal seta arising from cylindrical process, and 

 spinules around articulation with exopod. Exopod as in 9 except for 

 an additional small, bipinnate seta along the outer margin, and fewer 

 spinular rows. 



Notes. 



The holotype urosome is damaged showing a break between 



urosomites 3 and 4. The distal portion of the urosome is reillustrated 



here to provide additional information for the anal somite and caudal 



rami. 



Inspection of the holotype and paratypes revealed that what 

 Geddes (1968a) illustrated as discrete segments 4 and 5 of the 

 female antennule is in reality a single segment. This segment has a 

 surface suture, which Geddes illustrated as a functional articulation 

 between two segments, running subdistally from the anterior to- 

 wards the posterior margin. However, the surface suture is incomplete 

 and does not reach the posterior margin. Also, the continuity of the 

 cuticle along the posterior margin further supports the interpretation 

 of a single compound segment rather than two distinct segments. 



The male P2 endopod also has a fusion not described by Geddes 

 (1968a). The two distal segments are fused into a single segment 

 indicated by a continuous cuticle running through the plane of 

 fusion. The membranous insert indicating the line of fusion (Fig. 

 12D) and the outer corner projection on what Geddes illustrated as 

 the second segment may have been the source of his misinterpreta- 

 tion of the endopod segmentation. 



This redescription has revealed additional setae, not found in 

 Geddes' description, on the following appendages in the female: 

 antennule (segments 2-6), antenna (allobasis and endopod), mandi- 

 ble (exopod and endopod), maxillule (coxal and basal endites), 

 maxilla (syncoxal endites and endopod), maxilliped (endopodal 

 claw), PI and P4 (basis), and caudal rami. Additional setae were also 

 found on the male antennule (segments 2-6). 



Neozausodes limigenus (Jakobi, 1954) comb. nov. 



TYPE LOCALITY. Brazil, Parana State; Bafa de Paranagua, Ilha do 

 Mel, Mar de Dentro. 



Notes. 



Jakobi's (1954) deficient description is very brief and contains 

 several internal inconsistencies (Lang, 1965). According to the 

 author the male is unknown but in the description of Z. 

 paranaguaensis he states that there is no sexual dimorphism in the 

 swimming legs. He further claims that the armature formula of P2- 

 P4 is identical in Z limigenus and Z stammeri, however, according 

 to his table on p. 223 the outer spine of P4 enp-2 is missing in the 

 former. This character, which was not figured by Jakobi, is unique 

 within the former Zausodes complex and requires confirmation. The 

 species is placed in Neozausodes on account of the 7- 

 segmented 9 antennule, the presence of large uniserrate spines on 

 the penultimate segment of this appendage, and the round P5 

 exopod. 



Neozausodes paranaguaensis (Jakobi, 1954) comb. nov. 



Type LOCALITY. Brazil, Parana State; Bafa de Paranagua, Ilha do 

 Mel, Mar de Dentro. 



Note. 



According to Jakobi (1954) males of this species possess a small 

 inner seta on P3-P4 exp-1. Since the author did not illustrate but 

 only tabulated this character, and none of the other species of the 



