Bull. nat. Hist. Mus. Lond. (Zool.) 66( 1 ):49- 1 07 Issued 29 June 2000 



Basal resolution of laophontid phylogeny and 

 the paraphyly of Esola Edwards 



RONY HUYS AND WONCHOEL LEE 



Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD 



CONTENTS 



Introduction 50 



Materials and Methods 50 



Generic diagnoses and species descriptions 50 



Family Laophontidae T. Scott, 1905 50 



Genus Esola Edwards, 1891 50 



Esola longicauda Edwards, 1891 51 



Esola bulbifera (Norman, 1911) 52 



Esola galapagoensis Mielke, 1981 grad. nov 59 



Esola canalis sp. nov 59 



Esola lobata sp. nov 62 



Esola profunda sp. nov 63 



Esola vervoorti sp. nov 63 



Esola longicauda Edwards, 1891 sensu Noodt (1955) 67 



Esola longicauda Edwards, 1891 var. sensu Vervoort (1964) 67 



Esola longicauda Edwards, 1891 sensu Wells & Rao (1986) 67 



Esola spec, sensu Mielke (1997) 67 



Genus Mourephonte Jakobi. 1953 67 



Mourephonte longiseta (Nicholls, 1941a) 70 



Genus Archilaophonte Willen, 1995 73 



Genus Applanola gen. nov 73 



Applanola hirsuta (Thompson & A. Scott, 1903) comb, nov 74 



Genus Archesola gen. nov 81 



Archesola typhlops (Sars, 1908) comb, nov 82 



Archesola longiremis (T. Scott, 1905) comb, nov 87 



Archesola hamondi sp. nov 87 



Esola sp. sensu Chislenko (1967) 88 



Archesola typhlops pontoica (Por, 1959) comb, nov 88 



Genus Corbulaseta gen. nov 88 



Corbulaseta bulligera (Farran, 1913) comb, nov 89 



Genus Bathyesola gen. nov 91 



Bathyesola compacta sp. nov 91 



Status of Esola spelaea (Chappuis, 1938) 95 



Genus Troglophonte gen. nov 97 



Phylogenetic analysis 99 



Taxa and Characters 99 



Results 101 



Subfamilial division 103 



Key to genera of Esolinae 104 



Ecological radiation of Esolinae 104 



Acknowledgements 105 



References 105 



SYNOPSIS. The phylogeny of the Laophontidae, currently the second most speciose family of harpacticoid copepods in the 

 marine environment, is poorly understood. Despite its well established monophyletic status interrelationships within the family 

 have not been re-assessed since Lang's (1948) deceptive phylogenetic hypothesis based on 19 genera (6 being of non-laophontid 

 affinity). Quadrupling of the number of recognized genera in the last 50 years and the persistent failure to recognize the 

 paraphyletic or polyphyletic nature of many of them have severely compromised objective analysis of relationships. 



Parsimony analysis employing all informative morphological characters supports a basal dichotomy dividing the family in two 

 clades which are attributed subfamilial status. The Laophontinae, containing 95% of the species, differs from the Esolinae sub 

 fam. nov. in 9 P5 morphology, the loss of the outer spine on the distal endopod segment of P2 and additional losses of armature 

 elements on the maxillipedal syncoxa and PI endopod which were primitively retained in the Esolinae. Based on P3 endopod 



© The Natural History Museum, 2000 



