taxonID	type	description	language	source
BE31101C9A718D625EBC2FD513F09F04.taxon	description	(Fig 1) = Bopyrus foliosus Kr ̂ yer in Gaimard, [1842] = Stegophrixus (sic) thompsoni Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis, 1931 n. syn.	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A718D625EBC2FD513F09F04.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Valparaíso, Chile (Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis 1931).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A718D625EBC2FD513F09F04.taxon	biology_ecology	Hosts: “ Pagurus ” sp. (Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis 1931).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A718D625EBC2FD513F09F04.taxon	discussion	Remarks: There was never a text description published for Bopyrus foliosus and the availability of the name is from Kr ̂ yer’s plate 29, fig. 2, although the dating of this and the other plates in the volume is contentious (see note under Kr ̂ yer in Gaimard [1842] in References). As far as can be determined, this species has only been cited in the literature one time subsequent to its introduction as a brief mention by Spence Bate & Westwood (1867). The type specimens (ZMUC CRU- 006445) are, unfortunately, missing from the ZMUC collection. A comparison of the figures of Kr ̂ yer in Gaimard ([1842]) (Fig. 1 A – D herein) with those of Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis (1931: figs. 87 – 89) (Fig. 1 E, F herein) shows that Bopyrus foliosus is identical with Stegophrixus (sic) thompsoni Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis, 1931 (currently Anathelges thompsoni (Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis, 1931 )); the type material of S. thompsoni was examined by Boyko & Williams (2003). Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis (1931) based their description of S. thompsoni on a pair of Kr ̂ yer specimens from Valparaíso, Chile, which may be the same specimens that Kr ̂ yer used as the basis for the figures of B. foliosus, although there are some slight differences that make this not completely certain. As Stegophrixus (sic) thompsoni / Stegophryxus thompsoni / Anathelges thompsoni has only been mentioned in the literature a few times subsequent to the original description (Markham 1974 b; Boyko & Williams 2003; Markham 2003; Diaz & Roccatagliata 2006; EspinosaPérez & Hendrickx 2006; Pardo et al. 2009; McDermott et al. 2010) and new material of this species has never been reported, there is no issue in recognizing B. foliosus as the senior synonym of Stegophiyxus (sic) thompsoni Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis, 1931, making Anathelges foliosus (Kr ̂ yer in Gaimard, [1842]) n. comb. the valid name for the species.	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A728D615EBC286B113B9F68.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Queensland, Australia; Seram, Indonesia (Bourdon & Bruce 1983; Bourdon 1983).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A728D615EBC286B113B9F68.taxon	biology_ecology	Hosts: Anchistus australis (Bruce, 1977), A. custos (Forskål, 1775) (Bourdon & Bruce 1983; Bourdon 1983).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A728D615EBC286B113B9F68.taxon	discussion	Remarks: Although the intent of Roland Bourdon was clearly to describe the species in Bourdon (1983) and cite a second record of it in Bourdon & Bruce (1983), the latter paper was published in July 1983, while the former was published on 15 Dec 1983. The text included in the Remarks section in Bourdon & Bruce (1983) includes morphological characters and is sufficient to make the name available from that paper. This means that the spelling of the specific name as Bopyrina platylobae is the correct original spelling and the subsequent spelling, B. platylobata, is in error despite the latter spelling being cited as correct in other papers (e. g., Markham 2010). The specific name is credited solely to Bourdon in Bourdon & Bruce (1983), so the authorship remains unchanged. Bourdon in Bourdon & Bruce (1983) cited a pair of specimens on Anchistus custos from Queensland as well as the “ holotype ” which was specified to be a female on A. australis from Seram Island (Indonesia) by Bourdon (1983). Following ICZN Article 72.4.1.1 for allowable evidence to determine the composition of a type series for a nominal species established prior to 2000, we consider the type series to be the pairs of bopyrids cited in both Bourdon & Bruce (1983) and Bourdon (1983) with the identity of the holotype unchanged from that designated by Bourdon (1983). The specimens from A. custos are therefore paratypes.	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A738D665EBC2D241659989B.taxon	description	(Fig 2)	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A738D665EBC2D241659989B.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined: Ovigerous female neotype, 9.5 mm (RMNH. CRUS. I. 1667) and mature male (2.15 mm) from non-ovigerous female Palaemon adspersus (22.1 mm CL, including rostrum) collected by P. Buitendijk from Genoa, Italy, July 1927.	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A738D665EBC2D241659989B.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Eastern part of the temperate Northern Atlantic, western part of the temperate Northern Pacific (Bourdon 1968).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A738D665EBC2D241659989B.taxon	biology_ecology	Hosts: Temperate Northern Atlantic: Palaemon adspersus Rathke, 1836 (= P. squilla (Linnaeus, 1758); type host), P. elegans Rathke, 1836, P. serratus (Pennant, 1777), P. xiphias Risso, 1816, Processa edulis (Risso, 1816); temperate Northern Pacific: P. pacificus (Stimpson, 1860), P. serrifer (Stimpson, 1860) (Bourdon 1968).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A738D665EBC2D241659989B.taxon	discussion	Remarks: The type species of the genus Bopyrus has almost universally been cited as Bopyrus squillarum Latreille, usually with a publication date of 1802; however, the author and date of the genus name, the correct name for the type species, and the date of the species name are all incorrect. The genus name Bopyrus first appeared on page 83 of Bosc (1801 a) (“ An X ” of the French Republican calendar; published before 22 October 1801 fide Low 2012) with a description of the characters of the genus and a reference to the paper of Fougeroux de Bondaroy (1772) that described, but did not name, a bopyrid found on a shrimp. As no mention of any included species was given, this is not an available name according to the ICZN. The genus name Bopryus next appeared on page 213 of Bosc (1801 b) (“ An X ”; published before 26 December 1801 fide Low 2012) with another description, attribution of the name to Latreille, another reference to the paper of Fougeroux de Bondaroy (1772) and inclusion of Monoculus crangorum Fabricius, 1798 as the sole species in the genus as Bopyrus crangorum (i. e., the type species by monotypy). Note that the genus Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758 was suppressed by the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (1954; Opinion 288) but this Opinion did not mention Monoculus crangorum; ostensibly because it is not one of the names originally included in the genus. The genus and species are therefore correctly cited as Bopyrus Bosc, 1801 and Bopyrus crangorum (Fabricius, 1798), however, the use of this name for the type species was questioned by subsequent authors. The genus name Bopyrus next appeared on page 43 of Latreille (1802) (“ An X ”; published 6 Nov 1802 fide Dupuis 1986) but with no mention of Bopyrus squillarum. The only species included in Bopyrus by Latreille (1802) was Monoculus crangorum Fabricius, 1798 as was also true for Bosc (1801 b). Latreille (1804) (“ An XII ”; published Feb – Mar 1804 fide Dupuis, 1986) more fully diagnosed Bopyrus and introduced the name Bopyrus squillarum (as “ bopyrus squillarum ”) as a replacement name for Bopyrus crangorum. Latreille’s (1804: 55) rationale as to the need for a replacement name was faulty in that he stated “ This species of bopyre will be for me the prawn bopyre, bopyrus (sic) squillarum. As it is not found on the crustaceans that make up the crangon (sic) genus of Fabricius, I do not think I should retain the specific name given to it by this author, monoculus (sic) crangorum ” (translated from the French). Latreille (1804), therefore, replaced the name of the type species for a reason that is not permissible under the ICZN, i. e., simply because he believed that the parasite did not occur on a species of Crangon Fabricius, 1798. The parasite does not, in fact, occur on crangonids but this is irrelevant as to the correct name of the species. Giard & Bonnier (1890) recognized the priority of Monoculus crangorum as the type species of Bopyrus but further confused matters by abandoning both Fabricius’ and Latreille’s species names and replacing them with their own set of names, each linked to a single species of host (reflecting Giard’s belief that each parasite species had only a single host; see Kuris 1974). They wrote: “ The name B. squillarum given by Latreille in 1804 does not have priority: Fabricius had previously (1798) called the same crustacean Monoculus crangorum. As this designation may have suggested that it was a Crangon parasite, it was rejected by all subsequent zoologists, with the exception of Bosc, which was renamed Bopyrus crangorum. But the name Bopyrus squillarum is subject to similar criticism. It may be assumed that the epicarid in question is only a parasite of Palaemon squilla Linné. Even by restricting the use of this appellation and applying it only to the P. squilla parasite, the inextricable complication of synonymy would not be avoided. Therefore, we believe it is better to completely abandon the name given by Latreille, as Latreille abandoned the name given by Fabricius, and we will designate the various species of European bopyrids as follows ... ” (translated from the French). Giard & Bonnier (1890) provided five new names for what they considered distinct species of Bopyrus, one for each host, and all of which were synonymized with B. squillarum by Sars (1898). However, while Sars (1898) likewise recognized M. crangorum as the senior synonym of B. squillarum (or, as spelled by Sars, “ sqvillarum ”), he nevertheless attempted to justify the continued use of the junior name for the species: “ This form was first recorded by O. Fabricius as Monoculus crangorum; but as the specific name proposed by that author involves a confusion of shrimps with prawns, it is impossible to retain it and therefore, though the older one, it ought to give place to that proposed by Latreille. ” We are unclear as to what Sars’ precise issue with shrimps versus prawns was, as these are common names and have been subject to different interpretations over time. Currently, “ shrimps ” are generally considered to be carideans while “ prawns ” are dendrobranchiates but also Palaemon spp. and Macrobrachium spp.; however, it may have been different in 1898 (both Crangon and Palaemon are caridean genera). It should also be pointed out that the author of M. crangorum was J. C. Fabricius, not O. Fabricius. The reasons given for replacing the name Monoculus crangorum by Latreille (1804) and Giard & Bonnier (1890) are not allowed under ICZN Article 18 (“ The availability of a name is not affected by inappropriateness … ”). If these names were competing names independently given to the same taxon by different authors (i. e., synonyms), then the argument could be made to have the senior synonym suppressed in favor of the commonly used B. squillarum but these are not competing names sensu ICZN Article 23 as B. squillarum is an invalid replacement name for M. crangorum and reversal of precedence is therefore not possible. The valid name for the type species of Bopyrus Bosc, 1801 (not Latreille 1802) is Monoculus crangorum Fabricius, 1798 in the combination Bopyrus crangorum (Fabricius, 1798). The type host of B. crangorum is Palaemon squilla (Linnaeus, 1758) fide Fabricius (1798); the current name for this species is Palaemon adspersus Rathke, 1836 (see De Grave & Fransen 2011). It is not clear how many female specimens Fabricius examined and he did not describe the male of the species. In any case, the type specimen (s) of Monoculus crangorum is / are not extant (Zimsen 1964). Given the multiple names used by Giard & Bonnier (1890) for specimens occurring on different hosts and the possibility of cryptic species, especially given the geographic and host range of this species, we, in the interest of fixing the name of the type species, hereby select a dextral ovigerous female, 9.5 mm (RMNH. CRUS. I. 1667) as the neotype of Monoculus crangorum Fabricius, 1798 (Fig. 2 C, D); the neotype is accompanied by a mature male (2.2 mm) (Fig. 2 E, F) and parasitized a non-ovigerous female Palaemon adspersus (Fig. 2 A, B; 22.1 mm CL including rostrum; originally identified as P. squilla by A. M. Buitendijk; ID verified by C. H. J. M. Fransen, Aug 2022), collected by Buitendijk from Genoa, Italy in July 1927. The species was redescribed in detail by Bourdon (1968) based on a female and male pair obtained from a specimen of P. serratus (18.9 mm CL excluding the rostrum); he examined numerous specimens obtained from four different species of Palaemon from France and Italy, including the specimen selected here as the neotype. Note that records of B. squillarum (e. g., Chopra 1923; Savant & Kewalramani 1964; Deshmukh 1987) from the Western Indo-Pacific on Palaemon styliferus (H. Milne Edwards, 1840) and Nematopalaemon tenuipes (Henderson, 1893) should all probably be referred to Bopyrus bimaculatus Chopra, 1923. Note on monogenean flatworms putatively associated with bopyrid isopods: The monogenean Allodiclidophora squillarum (Parona & Perugia, 1889) Yamaguti, 1963 was originally reported from Bopyrus squillarum collected in the Adriatic Sea. Although there are verified reports of monogeneans attached to cymothoid isopods that feed on primary fish hosts (see Bouguerche et al. 2022), Parona & Perugia (1889) is the only report of a monogenean / bopyrid association. Parona & Perugia (1889) did not mention the identity of the host of B. squillarum and many authors have repeated this record without comments (Price 1943; Dawes 1956; Bychowsky 1961). At least some authors erroneously assumed that the host of B. squillarum was a fish (Bychowsky 1961; Radujković & Šundić 2014). In fact, Yamaguti (1963) erected Allodiclidophora with Mesocotyle squillarum as the type species and indicated as part of the generic diagnosis that species in this genus were “ parasitic on Cymothoba (sic) in mouth cavity of Maenidae. ” This is clearly in error and other authors may have similarly assumed that B. squillarum is a cymothoid. As indicated by Overstreet (1983) and Bouguerche et al. (2021), the host of B. squillarum is a shrimp. Considering that subsequent to the report of Parona & Perugia (1889) no monogeneans have been recorded from any bopyrid, it is possible that the report is a case of a sampling error (i. e., the monogenean fell off a fish host and was incidentally collected with B. squillarum). A study of the morphology of A. squillarum and the fact that other monogeneans associated with parasitic crustaceans (cymothoids and caligid copepods) are epibionts of the crustaceans that feed on the fish hosts (Ohtsuka et al. 2018; Bouguerche et al. 2022), we feel it is highly unlikely that A. squillarum feeds on a bopyrid or shrimp host. Bouguerche et al. (2021) listed B. squillarum as a host of the monogenean Cyclocotyla bellones Otto, 1823 but presumably this is an error due to others (e. g., Radujković & Šundić 2014) who previously considered A. squillarum a synonym of C. bellones.	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A768D655EBC2C91129098B7.taxon	description	(Fig 3)	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A768D645EBC2D0513649D53.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined: 1 mature female (2.7 mm) and male (1.3 mm) (USNM 143663) parasitizing Synalpheus brooksi Coutière, 1909 collected from a sponge by tow netting in Thalassia sp. beds near mangrove swamp, east of Pigeon Point, Tobago, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies, Smithsonian-Bredin Caribbean Expedition, Caribee R / V, station number 30 - 59, 10 April 1959, coll. T. E. Bowman (see collection information at: https: // www. biodiversitylibrary. org / bibliography / 131770).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A768D645EBC2D0513649D53.taxon	distribution	Distribution: North Carolina, Georgia, Florida (Gulf of Mexico and Dry Tortugas), Bahamas, U. S. Virgin Islands, Haiti (Pearse 1953; Markham 1985).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A768D645EBC2D0513649D53.taxon	biology_ecology	Hosts: Alpheus formosus Gibbes, 1850, Synalpheus brooksi Coutière, 1909, S. minus (Say, 1818), S. pandionis Coutière, 1909 (Pearse 1953; Markham 1985).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A768D645EBC2D0513649D53.taxon	discussion	Remarks: The status of Bopyrina crangona has not been assessed in any formal publication since it was introduced by Pearse (1953). The original description and illustrations, especially of the female are rather poor, and there are errors (the female is described as having either only four pairs of pereopods or pereopods 1 – 4, 6, and 7; it is not possible to determine which from Pearse’s wording but neither is correct). Unfortunately, both the holotype (USNM 95120) and allotype (USNM 95121) were mounted on slides and have deteriorated (Fig. 3 D, E), and it is no longer possible to make out the taxonomically important features of the specimens. The only mentions of Bopyrina crangona in the literature subsequent to the original description are in one key to species (Schultz 1969) and in one list (Kelley 1978) as well as a mention in a paper pointing out that the species name was incorrectly formed (Steyskal 1969; who indicated it should have been “ crangonis ”). In his dissertation, Markham (1974 a) discussed the status of this species based on his examination of the types (likely already in poor condition when he viewed them) and concluded that it was a synonym of Bopyro choprae Pearse, 1932 but he did not publish this information nor mention B. crangona in any of his later papers, including the overview of parasites of carideans in the western Atlantic (Markham 1985). Kruczynski & Menzies (1977) transferred B. choprae to Synsynella as a synonym of Synsynella deformans Hay, 1917 but both Bourdon (1981 b) and Markham (1985) considered it to be a distinct species, Synsynella choprae. Bourdon (1981 b) emended the species name to “ choprai ” due to a perceived misidentification of the gender of B. Chopra. However, ICZN Article 31.1.3 requires the original spelling to be maintained as there is no evidence in Pearse’s (1953) paper as to the gender of B. Chopra; his full name was Bashambhar Nath Chopra (1898 – 1966), Director of the Zoological Survey of India, Indian Museum, Kolkata from 1944 – 1947. ICZN Article 33.3.1 also applies here as the original spelling is in prevailing usage. Based on the description and illustrations of Pearse (1953) and our examination of additional specimens (USNM 143663) identified as this species by John Markham (Fig. 3 A – D), we concur with Markham (1974 a) and formally place Bopyrina crangona in synonymy with Synsynella choprae. The female specimen (Fig. 3 A, B) matches the previous descriptions of S. choprae, including the female exhibiting a fully open brood pouch and oostegites 4 and 5 nearly three times as long as broad (see Markham 1985). However, the female pleon (Fig. 3 C) is mostly fused and exhibits only two pairs of pleopods (the degree of pleonal fusion and number of pleopods has been shown to be variable in the genus; see Bourdon 1968). Synsynella choprae is morphologically very similar to S. deformans but, in addition to the female characters mentioned above, the species are distinguished by the antennae and pleopods of males (S. choprae has antennules and antennae of 3 and 2 segments, respectively, and a very reduced or absent fourth pair of pleopods versus S. deformans with both antennules and antennae of 3 segments each and a small but distinct fourth pair of pleopods). The male examined herein (Fig. 3 D) matches that of S. choprae in these and other characters.	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A778D6B5EBC2A5D11AA99EB.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Japan; Zhejiang, China (Saito et al. 2000; Huang 2001).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A778D6B5EBC2A5D11AA99EB.taxon	biology_ecology	Hosts: Metapenaeopsis acclivis (Rathbun, 1902), M. barbata (De Haan, 1844), Trachypenaeus anchoralis (Spence Bate, 1881) (Saito et al. 2000; Huang 2001).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A778D6B5EBC2A5D11AA99EB.taxon	discussion	Remarks: Parapenaeon richardsonae (Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis, 1931) was originally described in Apopenaeon Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis, 1931 but that genus is a synonym of Parapenaeon (see Bourdon 1979). Shiino (1933) introduced the new taxon name Parapenaeon consolidata var. richardsonae which is deemed to be of subspecific rank as it was published before 1961 and Shiino (1933) expressly used the term “ var. ” (see ICZN Article 45.6.4). Parapenaeon consolidata richardsonae is therefore a junior secondary homonym of Parapenaeon richardsonae (Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis, 1931) as they both are species-group names. Shiino’s (1933) taxon is still considered valid and, as such, the name needs to be replaced and we propose Parapenaeon consolidata shiinoi n. nom. Note that one of the hosts listed by Saito et al. (2000) for this species, Penaeopsis akayebi (Rathbun, 1901), is a synonym of Metapenaeopsis barbata (De Haan, 1844) (WoRMS 2022 b).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A788D6B5EBC2E6D10FE9C15.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Japanese and Russian sides of the Sea of Japan (Shiino 1958; Kornienko et al. 2018).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A788D6B5EBC2E6D10FE9C15.taxon	biology_ecology	Hosts: Pagurus brachiomastus (Thallwitz, 1891), P. middendorfii Brandt, 1851, P. minutus Hess, 1865, P. ochotensis Brandt, 1851 (Shiino 1958; Kornienko et al. 2018)	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A788D6B5EBC2E6D10FE9C15.taxon	discussion	Remarks: Parapseudione lata cannot remain in Parapseudione as that genus is synonymized with Pleurocrypta in the present work (see below). Aside from the female having four pairs of biramous pleopods and one pair of uniramous pleopods, all the characters of the females and males indicate that this species belongs to Eremitione, and we transfer it to that genus herein. Markham (1986) and Boyko & Williams (2004) suggested that P. lata might be a synonym of Pseudione hyndmanni (Spence Bate & Westwood, 1867). However, given the geographic distance between Japan and Europe, as well as several morphological differences (e. g., smooth oostegite 1 internal ridge in E. lata vs. digitate in P. hyndmanni; male without pleopods in E. lata vs. with pleopods in P. hydmanni; see Bourdon 1968), we retain E. lata as a distinct species.	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A788D6B5EBC295511229F5F.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Known only from “ El Araish (Marokko). 30 – 35 Fd. ” (= Larache, Morocco, 55 - 64 m) (Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis 1931).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A788D6B5EBC295511229F5F.taxon	biology_ecology	Host: “ Galathea sp. ” (Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis 1931).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A788D6B5EBC295511229F5F.taxon	discussion	Remarks: Bourdon (1968) suggested that Parapseudione dubia might be a synonym of Pleurocrypta microbranchiata G. O. Sars, 1898. The main characters used by Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis (1931) to distinguish Parapseudione from other genera were the female having the first four pleopods biramous and the fifth uniramous; Bourdon (1968: 273) showed that mature Pleurocrypta microbranchiata females varied in having three to five pairs of biramous pleopods. Given that the description and figures of the holotype of Parapseudione dubia are incomplete and the lack of an accompanying male, we refrain from synonymizing P. dubia with any of the currently recognized species in Pleurocrypta but we do synonymize the two genera.	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A798D6A5EBC2CD910D59DA3.taxon	description	(Fig 4 A – D, I) http: // zoobank. org / urn: lsid: zoobank. org: act: 74 A 054 D 1 - D 0 A 9 - 4034 - BC 19 - 0 B 809 F 43 FA 3 E	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A798D6A5EBC2CD910D59DA3.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis: Cryptoniscus larva / male body elongate. Head wider than long, anteroposteriorly inflated, posterior margin wider than pereomere 1; eyes absent. Antennule article 1 short, rounded, without marginal teeth; dense setal brush present. Coxal plates with weak marginal crenulations but without teeth. Pereopods 1 – 3 gnathopodal, 1 and 2 with globular propodi and thick dactyli extending to distal margin of merus, pereopod 3 with ovate propodus and slender dactylus extending to distal margin of carpus; pereopods 4 – 7 ambulatory with propodi tapering distally; all pereopodal dactyli bearing a distal tooth. Pleotelson triangular, with or without distal row of few stout teeth. Mature female spheroid in dorsal view, unsegmented, possibly with two pairs of pereopods and two pairs of posterior tubercles. Parasitizing cumaceans. Included genera and species: Capitoniscus Bourdon, 1972, type genus (type species = Capitoniscus cumacei Bourdon, 1972 by monotypy); Capitoniscus australis Bourdon, 1981; Capitoniscus peruvicus (Menzies & George, 1972) n. comb.; Carocryptus Schultz, 1977 (type species = Carocryptus laticephalus Schultz, 1977 by original designation).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A798D6A5EBC2CD910D59DA3.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Off coast of South Africa (35 ° 44 ’ S, 34 ° 16 ’ E), 3800 m (C. cumacei) (Bourdon 1972); South Pacific Ocean (50 ° 06 ’ S, 127 ° 31 ’ W – 50 ° 12 ’ S, 127 ° 30 ’ W), 3914 m (C. australis) (Bourdon 1981 a); off coast of Peru (09 ° 05 ’ S, 80 ° 43 ’ W), 5586 – 5648 m (C. peruvicus n. comb.) (Menzies and George 1972); Southern Ocean (64 ° 58 ’ S, 114 ° 13 ’ W – 65 ° 19 ’ S, 114 ° 06 ’ W), 3312 m (C. laticephalus) (Schultz 1977).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A798D6A5EBC2CD910D59DA3.taxon	biology_ecology	Host: Cumacea: Bathylamprops natalensis Jones, 1969 (Bourdon, 1972) for C. cumacei; hosts of other species not known.	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A798D6A5EBC2CD910D59DA3.taxon	discussion	Remarks: The three species of Capitoniscus and one of Carocryptus are very similar in all known characters. Of these species, only C. cumacei was described based on a male associated with a female; all others are known only from the cryptoniscus larval stage collected in plankton samples. Cryptoniscus larvae / males of these species are characterized by their inflated heads (Fig. 4 A), antennules (Fig. 4 B), and pereopod morphologies (Fig. 4 C – E), a unique combination of characters within Cryptoniscoidea; thus, the new family Capitoniscidae is herein erected for these two genera that were previously placed as Cryptoniscoidea incertae sedis. Capitoniscus peruvicus n. comb. was very incompletely described and figured but is clearly congeneric with C. cumacei and C. australis, albeit that C. peruvicus n. comb. has the most inflated head of all these species (Fig. 4 F). The species of Capitoniscus and Carocryptus can be distinguished by the following characters of the cryptoniscus larvae: coxal plates not visible in dorsal view (Capitoniscus; Fig. 4 A) vs. visible in dorsal view (Carocryptus; Fig. 4 G) and pleotelson distal margin with few blunt teeth (Capitoniscus; Fig. 4 H) vs. smooth (Carocryptus; Fig. 4 G). The female of C. cumacei (Fig. 4 I) was incompletely described and figured due to the specimen being lost after a preliminary sketch was made (Bourdon 1972).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A798D695EBC2A1516DE9EDE.taxon	description	(Fig 4 J) https: // zoobank. org / urn: lsid: zoobank. org: act: 603 E 3 A 47 - 7 E 2 D- 454 E-A 42 A-F 0 D 7 CA 01656 C	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A798D695EBC2A1516DE9EDE.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis: Epicaridium larva with antennules as long as body; setae on antennules and uropodal exopod and endopod as long as or longer than body. Cryptoniscus larva / male body elongate. Head longer than wide, conical, posterior margin no wider than pereomere 1; eyes absent. Antennule article 1 elongate with ca. 16 marginal acute teeth. Coxal plates with posterior margins toothed. Pereopods 1 – 3 gnathopodal, 4 – 7 ambulatory with propodi tapering distally, dactyli as long as propodi. Pleotelson margin with 10 teeth, distalmost pair longest. Mature female spheroid in dorsal view, dorsoventrally compressed, segmented, ventral surface with long median cleft and raised segmented pad surrounding cleft; anterior region with reduced antennae and pair of pereopods. Parasitizing cumaceans. Included genus and species: Cumoechus Hansen, 1916, type genus (type species = Cumoechus insignis Hansen, 1916 by monotypy).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A798D695EBC2A1516DE9EDE.taxon	distribution	Distribution: South of Jan Mayen, Norway (69 ° 31 ’ N, 07 ° 06 ’ W), 1309 fms (2394 m); northwest of the Faeroes, Denmark (63 ° 26 ’ N, 07 ° 56 ’ W and 61 ° 08 ’ N, 09 ° 28 ’ W), 436 – 471 fms (797 – 861 m); southwest of the Faeroes, Denmark (61 ° 08 ’ N, 09 ° 28 ’ W), 436 fms (797 m) (Hansen 1916).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A798D695EBC2A1516DE9EDE.taxon	biology_ecology	Hosts: Cumacea: Diastylis echinata Spence Bate, 1865, D. polaris G. O. Sars, 1871, Hemilamprops cristatus (G. O. Sars, 1870) (Hansen 1916).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A798D695EBC2A1516DE9EDE.taxon	discussion	Remarks: Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis (1931) noted similarities between the females of the nebaliacean parasite Apocumoechus paranebaliae Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis, 1931 and Cumoechus insignis Hansen, 1916 and placed both species in Cabiropidae, although with hesitation and noting that the cabiropids represented a heterogenous grouping. Danforth (1970) proposed a new subfamily of Cryptoniscidae, Apocumoechinae, to contain the nebaliacean parasite and another new subfamily, Cumoniscinae, to include Cumoniscus Bonnier, 1903 and Cumoechus; this work was not published (i. e., not recognized by the ICZN) and there were no characters provided to differentiate these taxa. These subfamily names were also mentioned by Adkison (1990) in his unpublished dissertation. Trilles (1999) placed Cumoechus in Apocumoechinae without comment and, again, provided no characters to differentiate Apocumoechinae from other taxa. Trilles (1999) also mentioned Cumoniscinae but it appears that he considered it to be a synonym of Apocumoechinae. Although Apocumoechinae has never been made available, Cumoniscidae is an available name from Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis (1923; see Boyko & Boxshall 2018) but the type genus Cumoniscus is a tantulocaridan, not an epicaridean, and Cumoechus does not belong to this family. It is clear from the characters of the females, cryptoniscus larvae / males, and epicaridium larvae of Cumoechus insignis, that this genus and species does not belong in Cabiropidae (see Boyko 2013). We consider the characters of C. insignis, in particular those of the cryptoniscus larva, to indicate that this genus and species belongs in its own family, Cumoechidae n. fam. The female of C. insignis is superficially similar to that seen in species of Clypeoniscus Giard & Bonnier, 1895 (Cabiropidae), particularly in the structure of the appendages: compare Hansen (1916: pl. 16, fig 5 b, herein Fig. 4 J) with Giard & Bonnier (1895: pl. 8, fig 22), but there are no lateral lobes in C. insignis (Hansen 1916: pl. 16, fig 5 a). The cryptoniscus larva of C. insignis (slender body, elongate antennule basal segment, antennule peduncular segment 2 with large distal teeth, pereopods 1 – 3 prehensile, uropodal exopod and endopod slender and elongate; see Hansen 1916: pl. 16, fig 5 c, e, f, i) is very different from that seen in species of Clypeoniscus (short, tear-drop shaped body, short antennular basal segment, antennule peduncular segment 2 without large distal teeth, pereopods 1, 2 prehensile, uropodal exopod and endopod stout and short). Likewise, the epicaridium larvae are different, with those of Cumoechus insignis (Hansen 1916: pl. 16, fig 5 k) having the antennules as long as the body and setae on the antennules and uropods that are as long as or longer than the length of the body while the antennules, antennular setae, and uropodal setae of Clypeoniscus species are much shorter than the body. The unusual epicaridium larva of Cumoechus insignis superficially resembles that of Scalpelloniscus vomicus Hosie, 2008 (Hemioniscidae) as both have antennules, antennular setae and uropodal setae that exceed the length of the body. However, the seta on the distolateral corner of the uropodal sympod is shorter than the exopod in C. insignis and the anal tube is much shorter than the exopod while the epicaridium larva of S. vomicus have setae on the sympod that are more than three times as long as the exopod and the anal tube is as long as the exopod. The female of Apocumoechus paranebaliae is much less well described than that of C. insignis and no larval stages are known. From the limited data presented by Nierstrasz & Brender à Brandis (1931), it appears that Apocumoechus may be closer to Clypeoniscus than to Cumoechus but new collections and redescription of the type species are needed. Hansen (1916) figured specimens from three different collections and two different host species. Nielsen & Str ̂ mberg (1965) indicated the specimens (all syntypes) of Cumoechus insignis from the three different hosts might not “ all belong to the same species ” but this was speculative as they examined no specimens.	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A7A8D685EBC2B5013339A5F.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis (modified from Grygier (1981): Cryptoniscus larva / male body tear-drop shaped with prominent cuticular striations. Head wider than long, oral cone directed anteriorly; eyes absent. Antennule article 1 with 5 posterior teeth. Coxal plates longitudinally ridged, posterior margins smooth. Pereopods 1 and 2 gnathopodal, 3 – 7 ambulatory; propodi of 3 – 5 quadrate distally, 6 and 7 tapering distally. Pleotelson margin smooth. Mature females spheroid in dorsal view, dorsoventrally compressed with anterior and posterior ends curled ventrally; segmentation not retained, lacking appendages. Included species: Gorgoniscus incisodactylus Grygier, 1981 (type by original designation)	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A7A8D685EBC2B5013339A5F.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Off Makapuu Point, Oahu, Hawaii (21 ° 18 ’ N, 157 ° 32 ’ W), 366 m (type locality); known from the type locality and another 10 km off Makapuu Point (Grygier 1981).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A7A8D685EBC2B5013339A5F.taxon	biology_ecology	Host: Cirripedia: Ascothoracica: Gorgonolaureus sp. (Grygier 1981).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A7A8D685EBC2B5013339A5F.taxon	discussion	Remarks: Aside from the shape and degree of metamorphosis of the mature females which are spheroid and have no evidence of segmentation, all the characters of the cryptoniscus larva indicate that this genus should be placed in Hemioniscidae and it is herein transferred from Cryptoniscoidea incertae sedis, where it was placed by Grygier (1981).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A7B8D6E5EBC2E8916FA9BAB.taxon	description	(Fig 4 K)	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A7B8D6E5EBC2E8916FA9BAB.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis: Cryptoniscus larva / male body tear-drop shaped with prominent cuticular striations. Head wider than long, oral cone directed anteriorly; eyes present. Antennule article 1 with 7 bluntly rounded teeth. Coxal plates with or without teeth. Pereopods 1 and 2 gnathopodal, 3 – 7 ambulatory; propodi of 3 – 5 quadrate distally, 6 and 7 tapering distally. Pleotelson with smooth evenly rounded distal margin. Mature females with anterior segments unmodified from cryptoniscus larval form; posterior segments fused into enlarged marsupium. Included species and subspecies: Hemioniscus anatifae (Giard, 1887) n. comb.; H. balani balani Buchholz, 1866 (type species); H. balani japonica Ogawa & Matsuzaki, 1985; H. pagurophilus Williams & Boyko, 2006.	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A7B8D6E5EBC2E8916FA9BAB.taxon	distribution	Distributions: Hemioniscus anatifae n. comb.: Roscoff, Concarneau, and Wimereaux, France, intertidal (Giard 1887). Hemioniscus balani balani: Northern hemisphere: East Atlantic: (River Gironde, France to northern Norway, United Kingdom (Vader 1983; Arnott 2001); western Atlantic: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (Crisp 1968); east Pacific: Alaska to Baja California Norte, Mexico (Cornwall 1955; Campos-González & Campoy-Favela 1987; Blower & Roughgarden 1989). Intertidal at all localities. Hemioniscus balani japonica: Futaba County, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, intertidal (Ogawa & Matsuzaki 1985). Hemioniscus pagurophilus: Philippines, subtidal (<5 m) (Williams & Boyko 2006).	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A7B8D6E5EBC2E8916FA9BAB.taxon	biology_ecology	Hosts: Cirripedia: Acrothoracica: Tomlinsonia mclaughlinae Williams & Boyko, 2006 (H. pagurophilus, Philippines) (Williams & Boyko 2006). Cirripedia: Thoracica: Austrominius modestus (Darwin, 1854) (H. balani balani, Norway) (Vader 1968); Balanus glandula Darwin, 1854 (H. balani balani, east Pacific) (Blower & Roughgarden 1989); Chirona hameri (Ascanius, 1767) (H. balani balani, Irish Sea) (Crisp 1968); Chthamalus challengeri Hoek, 1883 (H. balani japonica, Japan) (Ogawa & Matsuzaki 1985); Chthamalus dalli Pilsbry, 1916 (H. balani balani, east Pacific) (Cornwall 1955; Blower & Roughgarden 1989); Chthamalus fissus Darwin 1854 (H. balani balani, east Pacific) (Campos-González & Campoy-Favela 1987; Blower & Roughgarden 1989); Lepas anatifera Linnaeus, 1758 (H. anatifae n. comb., France) (Giard 1887); Semibalanus balanoides (Linnaeus, 1767) (H. balani balani, east and west Atlantic, Alaska) (Crisp 1968; Vader 1968, 1983; Coyle & Mueller 1981)	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
BE31101C9A7B8D6E5EBC2E8916FA9BAB.taxon	discussion	Remarks: We herein synonymize Leponiscus Giard, 1887 with Hemioniscus Buchholz, 1866. Giard (1887) placed two “ species ” in Leponiscus: L. anatifae Giard, 1887 and L. pollicipedis Giard, 1887, both listed as “ nov. gen. et nov. sp. ” The latter name is a nomen nudum as Giard (1887) provided data on the host (Pollicipes cornucopia Leach, 1824 = Pollicipes pollicipes (Gmelin, 1791 )) and locality (Concarneau, France) but did not provide morphological characters. Giard (1887) explicitly referred to figures in Hesse (1867) as representing L. anatifae and this name is therefore available from Giard’s (1887) work (ICZN Article 12.2.5). Giard (1887) did not designate a type-species for Leponiscus, but as only one of the originally included species is an available name, the type species is L. anatifae by monotypy. As pointed out by Buhl-Mortensen et al. (2020), it is clear from the illustrations of Hesse (1867, pl. 3, fig. 8 – 26), on which L. anatifae was, in part, based, that this species is close to if not identical with Hemioniscus balani Buchholz, 1866 (Hemioniscidae). However, the figures of L. anatifae are stylized and inaccurate in many characters (e. g., large teeth on the second antennular segment which are certainly not present) and the count of the antennular basal segment teeth is suspect. It is also possible that there are two species represented in Hesse’s (1867) figures. Giard (1887) did not provide a written description of any characters for L. pollicipedis, but he did make a drawing of the ventral anterior end of a cryptoniscus larva he examined which remained unpublished until it was included in Bocquet-Vedrine & Bocquet’s (1972) paper (Fig. 4 K herein). This illustration shows that L. pollicipedis is nearly identical with H. balani (see Goudeau 1970) and as Giard considered L. pollicipedis and L. anatifae to be congeneric, it can be assumed that L. anatifae also belongs to Hemioniscus. Giard (1887) likely placed the parasites of pedunculate barnacles in a different genus than those of sessile barnacles following his theory that parasites found on different hosts must belong to different taxa (Kuris 1974). Despite the possibility that H. anatifae n. comb. is synonymous with H. balani, we conservatively retain the two species as distinct until topotypic specimens of the pedunculate barnacle parasite can be collected and examined. Several websites (e. g., https: // www. marlin. ac. uk / species / detail / 1376 # biology) list Hemioniscus balani balani as occurring as far south in the western Atlantic as Massachusetts but this is based on an erroneous interpretation of statements in Crisp (1968) that only apply to the host barnacle. The parasite has only been reported in the western Atlantic from sites in Halifax, Nova Scotia, possibly as the result of a relatively recent introduction of the parasite from eastern Atlantic waters (Crisp 1968). Populations of the host barnacle in Canada, Semibalanus balanoides, have been shown to have high gene flow in both regional and trans-Atlantic populations (Holm & Bourget 1994; Flight & Rand 2012) and it would be interesting to see if similar homogeneity exists in the parasite across the Atlantic Ocean. Cornwall (1955) stated that Hemioniscus balani balani (as “ Homioniscus ” [sic] balani) was found infesting up to 90 % of Chthamalus dalli in British Columbia and incorrectly stated that these infestations were “ usually fatal to the host ”; the parasite can cause castration of hosts but it has not been documented to negatively impact the life span of barnacles.	en	Boyko, Christopher B., Williams, Jason D. (2023): Nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in parasitic isopods (Isopoda: Epicaridea) including two new families and note on the questionable association between monogeneans and bopyrids. Zootaxa 5258 (3): 251-269, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5258.3.1
