identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03A11C63BA57FFA10A9EB9B9FCF0AFA6.text	03A11C63BA57FFA10A9EB9B9FCF0AFA6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Taurocletodes tumenae	<div><p>TAUROCLETODES TUMENAE SP. NOV.</p> <p>Type locality: Sandy beach 10 km west of Akçaabat, Trabzon province (station 39) (Turkey).</p> <p>Type material: Holotype ♀ in alcohol (reg. no. NHM 2003.704). Paratypes preserved in alcohol are 20 ♀♀ and 30 ♂♂ (deposited in NHM under reg. nos NHM 2003.705–754), and ten ♀♀ and ten ♂♂ (deposited in BU). Additional paratypes dissected on slides deposited in BU. Collected on 11 July 2001 from type locality; leg. S. Karaytug and S. Sak.</p> <p>Other material. Numerous specimens of both sexes (in alcohol) collected from sandy beach in Bes,ikdüzü, Trabzon province (station 38a), deposited in BU. Leg. S. Karaytug and S. Sak, 11 July 2001.</p> <p>Description (based on dissected paratypes)</p> <p>Female: Total body length from tip of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami: 290–370 Mm (mean = 336 Mm; n = 10). Body (Fig. 1C) more or less cylindrical, gradually tapering posteriorly; maximum width measured at posterior margin of cephalothorax. Integument of somites with transverse rows of minute spinules as figured (Figs 1C,D, 2A). Sensillar pattern as figured; somites bearing P4-P5 and genital half of double-somite with pairs of closely set sensillae dorsally (Figs 1C, 2A). Posterior margin of body somites with plain hyaline frill (Fig. 1C).</p> <p>Rostrum (Figs 3A, 8B) elongate, demarcated and widest at base; with two delicate sensillae and middorsal pore; rounded at tip; base surrounded by membranous areas.</p> <p>Genital double-somite (Fig. 2A,B) wider than long; without indication of original segmentation except for sensillar pattern and paired cuticular reinforcements ventrally (attachment sites of longitudinal trunk muscles; Fig. 2B). Double rows of tiny spinules present on either lateral side of genital field; midventral row posterior to copulatory pore; larger spinules forming transverse row around posterior margin (interrupted middorsally). Genital field located far anteriorly (Fig. 2B). Genital apertures paired (Fig. 6G), each closed off by operculum derived from vestigial sixth legs, and bearing three nonarticulating, short pinnate spines; copulatory pore large, leading to short and wide copulatory duct; seminal receptacles unconfirmed.</p> <p>Free abdominal somites with tiny spinules anteriorly and larger spinules around posterior margin (except middorsally). Anal somite with row of minute spinules between dorsal sensillate tubercles (Fig. 2A); operculum multispinose with 8–10 spike-like projections (Fig. 4D). Anus large, positioned terminally between caudal rami; anal fringe deeply incised forming setular lappets (partly concealed by anal operculum in Fig. 4D).</p> <p>Caudal rami (Fig. 4D) short and about as long as width; with six setae, seta I absent; spinules present around ventral posterior margin, inner margin and around base of seta II; with two pores dorsally; setae II- III bare; setae IV- V strongly developed and bipinnate (Fig. 2A); seta VI shorter than caudal ramus; seta VII tri-articulate at base.</p> <p>Antennule (Fig. 3B) short, 6-segmented; segmental membranes well developed; with outer sclerite at base of segment 1 (Fig. 3A). Segment 1 short and wide; with tiny seta and spinules near anterodistal margin. Posteriormost seta on segment 2 plumose. Segment 3 largest with long aesthetasc (L: 35 Mm) fused at base to short seta. Armature formula: 1-[1], 2-[7 + 1 plumose], 3-[6 + (1 + ae)], 4-[1], 5-[2], 6-[7 + acrothek]. Apical acrothek consisting of short aesthetasc (L: 10 Mm) and two slender setae. Setae arising from minute socles present on segments 3 (2), 4 (1) and 6 (5).</p> <p>Antenna (Fig. 3C, D) comprising coxa, allobasis and 1-segmented rami. Coxa small and naked. Allobasis with spinular row near base of exopod; abexopodal seta unipinnate (probably basal in origin). Exopod an elongate segment with one apical and one subapical unipinnate seta; with transverse spinule row halfway along the segment length. Free endopod with two rows of coarse spinules near inner margin and finer spinules at outer distal corner; lateral armature consisting of two unipinnate spines and one fine seta; apical armature consisting of two unipinnate spines and three geniculate setae (largest spiniform, with large spinules proximal to geniculation, and subapical tubular extension).</p> <p>Mandible (Fig. 3E). Coxa elongate, forming narrow gnathobase provided with series of multicuspidate teeth distally and unipinnate seta at dorsal corner (Fig. 3F); with spinule row near implantation of palp. Palp 1-segmented with four setae arising from subdistal outer margin; with spinule row apically.</p> <p>Maxillule (Fig. 3G). Praecoxa with few spinules around proximal outer margin; arthrite delimited at base by transverse surface suture, with two tube-setae on anterior surface and four anterior plus four posterior elements around distal margin. Coxal endite surrounded at base by membraneous area, cylindrical; with one seta and one unipinnate curved spine. Palp represented by single segment; with tiny spinule row on posterior surface; armature consisting of four setae along outer margin, one seta arising from anterior surface, and two setae plus one unipinnate claw apically.</p> <p>Maxilla (Fig. 4C) comprising syncoxa and allobasis. Syncoxa with numerous spinule rows as figured; with two cylindrical endites; each endite with two naked setae and drawn out into spine with very long, medially directed setules. Allobasis forming acutely recurved spinous endite with spinules along medial margin; accessory armature represented by two naked setae; endopod completely incorporated into allobasis, represented by three naked setae arising from membraneous area.</p> <p>Maxilliped (Fig. 3H) subchelate, comprising syncoxa, basis and 1-segmented endopod. Syncoxa with few spinules at base and strong pinnate spine at distal inner corner. Basis unarmed, with surface spinule row, long spinules along palmar margin and few spinules near distal outer corner. Area between basis and endopod with small sclerite surrounded by membrane. Endopod with one small accessory seta and drawn out into long acutely curved, naked claw.</p> <p>P1 (Fig. 5A). Intercoxal sclerite wide, without ornamentation. Praecoxa well developed, with anterior spinule row. Coxa very wide, forming lobate outer expansion; with large spinules near outer margin and minute spinule rows on both anterior and posterior surfaces. Basis much narrower than coxa, anterior surface with secretory pore and various spinule rows as figured; outer spine naked, inner spine pinnate. Rami 3-segmented. Exopod segments with coarse spinules along outer and distal margins, inner margins naked; inner seta of exp-2 minute and easily overlooked; outer spine of exp-1 and -2 unipinnate and with subapical tubular extension; exp-3 with two unipinnate spines and two slender, weakly geniculate setae bearing fine spinules near apex. Endopod (Fig. 5B) much longer than exopod, prehensile; tapering distally, with large arthrodial membranes between segments; enp-1 with spinules along outer margin and bipinnate inner seta; enp-2 much shorter than proximal and distal segments, with spinules along outer margin and large, penicillate inner seta arising from posterior surface; enp-3 with two spinules along outer margin, a small, penicillate inner seta subdistally, and one unipinnate spine plus one long geniculate seta with serrate tip distally. Penicillate setae on enp-2 and -3 with tubular extension apically (arrowed in Fig. 9A) and subapical tuft of flat setules; seta on enp-2 with swollen shaft, that on enp-3 fused at base to segment.</p> <p>P2–P4 (Figs 5C, 6A,E). Intercoxal sclerites with concave free margin and without ornamentation. Praecoxae with coarse spinules near outer margin and fine spinules around distal margin. Coxae with anterior pore near inner margin and spinule rows on both anterior and posterior surfaces as figured. Bases with outer unipinnate spine (with subapical tubular extension; P2) or plumose seta (P3–P4); anterior surface with secretory pore and setular row (not in P2; Fig. 5C) and with coarse spinules around distal margin near insertion of exopod. Exopods 3-segmented, endopods 1- (P4) or 2-segmented (P2–P3). All exopod segments with coarse spinules around outer margin; exp-1 and -2 typically with few spinules or setules along inner margin; hyaline frills incised; outer portion of exp-1 expanded; outer spines of exp-1 and -2 stout and unipinnate. Endopods small; with outer marginal spinules on all segments; P2–P3 enp-1 with anterior surface pore; inner distal element on enp-2 (P2–P3) or enp-1 (P4) short and spiniform, outer distal element long and setiform. Spine and seta formula as follows (apo = apophysis):</p> <p>Fifth legs closely set together (Fig. 2C), without intercoxal sclerite. Baseoendopod and exopod fused forming bilobate plate (Fig. 5E); inner lobe with four multipinnate setae; outer lobe with one very long and two short (multi)pinnate setae plus one naked seta; both lobes with few spinules around distal margin and one anterior surface pore; outer basal seta sparsely plumose, arising from very short setophore surrounded by spinules.</p> <p>Male: Total body length from tip of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami: 260–340 Mm (mean = 300 Mm; n = 10). Sexual dimorphism in rostrum, antennule, P2–P6, and in genital segmentation. Ornamentation of body (Figs 1A,B, 7A,B) generally as in female except for some small differences in spinulation, particularly on urosome. First abdominal somite with paired rounded internal reinforcements midventrally (attachment sites of longitudinal trunk muscles; Fig. 7B). Rostrum (Fig. 4A) distinctly longer and narrower than in ♀.</p> <p>Antennule (Figs 4A,B, 8A- D, 9B) 10-segmented, haplocer with geniculation between segments 7 and 8. Segment 1 with small sclerite at proximal posterior corner. Segment 3 U-shaped, with five articulating setae and two setae fused to segment. Segment 4 a small sclerite with two setae (Fig. 4A). Segment 5 swollen, forming lobate expansion anteriorly (Figs 4B, 8A); with large aesthetasc arising from pedestal and fused basally to short slender seta. Segment 7 with three modified elements (arrowed in Figs 8C, 9B), one basally fused element, two naked setae and one raised tube-pore. Segment 8 with anterior distal corner forming recurved dentate process (possibly representing modified element; arrowed in Fig. 8C,D), concealing three raised tube-pores. Segment 9 minute, with one tiny seta. Armature formula 1-[1], 2-[7 + 1 plumose], 3-[5 + 2 basally fused], 4-[2], 5-[4 + 2 pinnate + (1 + ae)], 6-[2], 7-[2 + 1 basally fused + 3 modified], 8-[1 dentate process], 9-[1], 10-[6 + acrothek]. Acrothek consisting of short aesthetasc fused basally to two bare setae. Socled setae present on segments 2 (1), 3(1), 5(1) and 10(5). Many setae with terminal pore (Fig. 8B,C).</p> <p>P2 (Fig. 5D) as in female except for (1) exopod relatively shorter; (2) exp-1 with outer spine naked instead of pinnate; (3) exp-3 with distal elements relatively shorter, inner distal seta shorter than outer one; (4) endopodal segments without spinules along outer margin; (5) enp-1 smaller and without inner element; (6) enp-2 outer distal seta much shorter.</p> <p>P3 (Fig. 6B- D) strongly sexually dimorphic. Protopod as in female. Outer spine of exp-1 enlarged, naked, reaching to middle of exp-3 and backwardly recurved (Fig. 6C). Outer spine of exp-2 naked instead of unipinnate (Fig. 6B). Distal elements of exp-3 reduced in size with inner distal seta markedly shorter than outer seta (instead of equally long). Endopod 3-segmented; enp-1 unarmed, with anterior surface pore and few spinules around inner margin (Fig. 6D); enp-2 forming anterior apophysis with barbed apical part (Fig. 6D), with two spinules along inner margin; enp-3 round, with surface pore, one vestigial and two naked setae.</p> <p>P4 (Fig. 6F). Protopod as in female. Exp-2 with smaller spinules around outer distal corner. Exp-3 constricted in proximal half; distal outer spine and apical setae shorter than in female; inner distal seta much shorter than outer one. Endopod 1-segmented, smaller than in female; inner seta and outer distal seta reduced in size.</p> <p>Fifth legs (Fig. 7B) medially fused. Exopod and baseoendopod fused, forming bilobate plate with two anterior surface pores (Fig. 9C). Endopodal lobe with two spines, exopodal lobe with two pinnate spines, one naked and two plumose setae.</p> <p>Sixth legs (Figs 7B, 9C) asymmetrical, fused to somite. Operculum closing off functional gonopore (arrowed in Fig. 9C) delimited by surface suture.</p> <p>Variability. Slight differences in size and ornamentation were observed in the setae of the female sixth legs (Fig. 6G). Three paratypic males displayed a supernumerary inner spine on the endopodal lobe of the P5 (arrowed in Fig. 7C). The male sixth legs show either dextral or sinstral arrangements depending on whether the right or left testes, vas deferens and gonopore are functional.</p> <p>Etymology. The species is dedicated to Prof. Dr Gülendam Tümen, Manager of the School of Nursery at the University of Balıkesir, in recognition of her continuous support and encouragement to the senior author.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A11C63BA57FFA10A9EB9B9FCF0AFA6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Karaytuǧ, Süphan;Huys, Rony	Karaytuǧ, Süphan, Huys, Rony (2004): Taxonomic position of and generic distinction between Parepactophanes Kunz, 1935 and Taurocletodes Kunz, 1975 (Copepoda, Canthocamptidae incertae sedis), with description of a new species from the Black Sea. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 140 (4): 469-486, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2003.00101.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2003.00101.x
03A11C63BA5BFFA109C3BE77FBEBAA71.text	03A11C63BA5BFFA109C3BE77FBEBAA71.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Taurocletodes AND GENERIC DIAGNOSES	<div><p>VALIDITY OF TAUROCLETODES AND GENERIC DIAGNOSES</p> <p>Proper comparison between the type species P. minuta and the material variously identified or named as P.? dubia, T. gallicus or P. dubia has until now been hampered by the fragmentary nature of the corresponding (re)descriptions or the unavailability of either males (Noodt, 1958b) or females (Kunz, 1975). Consequently, the issue whether the respective type species of Parepactophanes and Taurocletodes are congeneric (Kunz, 1983), has not been satisfactorily addressed. The description of both sexes of T. tumenae now enables us to subject the proposed synonymy of Parepactophanes and Taurocletodes to more scrutiny. Although Noodt (1958b) identified Parepactophanes as the closest match for P.? dubia, it is obvious that he intended only provisional generic assignment. Amongst other, less significant, features he recognized the 3-segmented P1 endopod in the Tenerife material as the major stumbling block to its inclusion in Parepactophanes, since both the type species P. minuta and the allegedly most closely related genera (Cletocamptus, Limnocletodes Borutzky) exhibit the 2-segmented condition.</p> <p>Parepactophanes minuta has not been redescribed since Kunz’ (1935) original description, which omitted illustrations of the mouthparts but was otherwise sufficiently informative by contemporary standards. Using Kunz’ (1935) illustrations as the basis for comparison with T. tumenae we believe that there are sufficient grounds to maintain the generic distinction between Parepactophanes and Taurocletodes. Most diagnostic characters readily emerge from a comparison of the swimming legs. We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of Kunz’ observations of the swimming legs since Noodt, who was generally more detailed in his approach and identified P. minuta on more than one occasion (Noodt, 1956, 1957, 1958a), would undoubtedly have reported oversights or ambiguities in the original description when attempting to overcome the difficulties in placing P.? dubia.</p> <p>The P1 endopod in Parepactophanes is as long as the exopod, 2-segmented, displays a [1.111] armature formula and lacks penicillate setae on the distal segment. In Taurocletodes it is distinctly longer than the exopod, 3-segmented, exhibiting a formula [1.1.111] with the inner seta on the middle and distal segments clearly penicillate in nature (Figs 5A,B, 9A) (for absence of these setae in Kunz’ (1975) description of T. gallicus, see below). The distal exopod segment of P2–P4 has two outer spines in Taurocletodes but this number is reduced to one in Parepactophanes. In addition, P. minuta possesses an inner seta on P4 exp-3, which is lacking in all Taurocletodes species. Males of both genera can be readily distinguished by the sexual dimorphism on the P2–P3 exopods, being completely absent in Parepactophanes, but clearly expressed in the outer spine of the proximal segment in Taurocletodes. This modification is moderate in P2, involving modest size increase of the spine and loss of surface ornamentation (Fig. 5C, D). It attains extreme proportions on the proximal exopod segment of P3 where the massive spine arises from a distinct pedestal, formed by the outer portion of the segment, and reaches to halfway along the distal segment (Fig. 6B,C).</p> <p>Both genera also differ in the segmentation and sexual dimorphism of the P2–P3 endopods. In P. minuta the endopods are 1-segmented and that of the P2 not sexually dimorphic. In Taurocletodes both endopods are 2-segmented but the inner seta on enp-1 found in the female P2 (and corresponding to the inner seta of the 1-segmented endopod of Parepactophanes) is absent in males. The sexual dimorphism of the P3 endopod is similar in both genera although the fine details of segmentation and ornamentation are not discernible in Kunz’ drawings of P. minuta. The distal portion of the male P3 endopod appears to extend into an apophysis and the inner seta present in the female is lost in the male (as in Taurocletodes; Fig. 6B,D).</p> <p>Finally, in Parepactophanes the rostrum is short and blunt, and the female P5 baseoendopod bears two spines and two setae. In Taurocletodes, the rostrum is long and spatulate (Figs 3A, 4A) and the endopodal lobe of the female P5 carries four setiform elements (Fig. 5E).</p> <p>On the basis of the suite of generic diagnostics identified above we refute Kunz’ (1983) course of action to relegate Taurocletodes to a junior synonym of Parepactophanes, and instead re-instate the former as a valid genus, with T. dubius (Noodt, 1958) comb. nov. as its type species. Amended generic diagnoses for both genera are given below.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A11C63BA5BFFA109C3BE77FBEBAA71	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Karaytuǧ, Süphan;Huys, Rony	Karaytuǧ, Süphan, Huys, Rony (2004): Taxonomic position of and generic distinction between Parepactophanes Kunz, 1935 and Taurocletodes Kunz, 1975 (Copepoda, Canthocamptidae incertae sedis), with description of a new species from the Black Sea. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 140 (4): 469-486, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2003.00101.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2003.00101.x
03A11C63BA58FFA209CDBDA3FED6AB7E.text	03A11C63BA58FFA209CDBDA3FED6AB7E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Parepactophanes Kunz 1935	<div><p>GENUS PAREPACTOPHANES KUNZ, 1935</p> <p>Diagnosis: Canthocamptidae. Small-sized (&lt;0.5 mm). Body cylindrical, prosome hardly wider than urosome. Anal operculum multispinose (bare in ♂?). Nauplius eye present. Rostrum short and blunt. Antennule 6-segmented in ♀, with aesthetasc on segment 3 (and most likely as part of acrothek on segment 6); all elements setiform and bare; subchirocer in ♂. Antenna with allobasis bearing one abexopodal seta; exopod 1- segmented, bisetose. Mandible with 1-segmented palp bearing four setae. Maxillule and maxilla unconfirmed. Maxilliped subchelate, syncoxa with seta, basis unarmed, endopod drawn out into claw. P1 with 3-segmented exopod and 2-segmented endopod; exp-2 without inner seta; enp-2 with unmodified setae; endopod as long as exopod. P2–P 4 ♀ short and robust, with 3-segmented exopods and 1-segmented endopods. Exopods with one outer spine on exp-3; without sexual dimorphism; P4 exp-3 inner seta present. Endopods P2 and P4 not sexually dimorphic; ♂ P3 endopod (in)completely 2-segmented; drawn out into slender apophysis, without inner seta on enp-1. P1–P4 armature formula as follows:</p> <table><tr><td>&nbsp;</td> <th>Exopod</th> <th>Endopod</th></tr> <tr><th>P1</th> <td>0.1.022</td> <td>1.1.111</td></tr> <tr><th>P2</th> <td>0.0.022</td> <td>1.020 [0.020 in ♂]</td></tr> <tr><th>P3</th> <td>0.0.022</td> <td>1.020 [0.apo. 030 in ♂]</td></tr> <tr><th>P4</th> <td>0.0.022</td> <td>120</td></tr> </table> <p>Fifth pair of legs medially free in ♀, presumably fused in ♂. Exopod and baseoendopod fused in both sexes. Exopodal lobe with four elements in ♀, five in ♂. Endopodal lobe with two spines and two setae in ♀, with two setae in ♂. Genital field in ♀ and sixth legs in ♂ unconfirmed. Caudal rami about as long as wide; setae IV- V well developed.</p> <p>Type and only species: Parepactophanes minuta Kunz, 1935 (by monotypy).</p> <p>Remarks: Kunz (1935) noted sexual dimorphism in the anal operculum, being multispinose in the female and bare in the male. He also suggested that eggs were laid freely in sediment (as in the Darcythompsoniidae) since no egg-sacs were observed despite the ovaries being fully mature. Both observations require confirmation.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A11C63BA58FFA209CDBDA3FED6AB7E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Karaytuǧ, Süphan;Huys, Rony	Karaytuǧ, Süphan, Huys, Rony (2004): Taxonomic position of and generic distinction between Parepactophanes Kunz, 1935 and Taurocletodes Kunz, 1975 (Copepoda, Canthocamptidae incertae sedis), with description of a new species from the Black Sea. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 140 (4): 469-486, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2003.00101.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2003.00101.x
03A11C63BA58FFA209FFBBCEFB54ABAA.text	03A11C63BA58FFA209FFBBCEFB54ABAA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Taurocletodes Kunz 1975	<div><p>GENUS TAUROCLETODES KUNZ, 1975</p> <p>Diagnosis: Canthocamptidae. Small-sized (&lt;0.5 mm). Body robust, more or less cylindrical with prosome slightly wider than urosome. Anal operculum multispinose. Nauplius eye present. Rostrum long, elongate and hyaline. Antennule 6-segmented in ♀, with aesthetasc on segment 3 and as part of acrothek on segment 6; all elements setiform and bare except for posteriormost seta on segment 2; 10-segmented in ♂, with geniculation between segments 7–8. Antenna with allobasis bearing one abexopodal seta; exopod 1- segmented, bisetose. Mandible with 1-segmented palp bearing four setae. Maxillule with two elements on coxa, four on basis; endopod and exopod represented by one and three setae, respectively. Maxilla with three endites. Maxilliped subchelate, syncoxa with strong spine, basis unarmed, endopod drawn out into claw. P1 with 3-segmented rami; exp-2 with small inner seta; enp-2 with long penicillate seta near boundary with enp-1, enp-3 with short penicillate seta near inner distal corner; endopod much longer than exopod. P2–P 4 ♀ short and robust; with 3-segmented exopods and 2-segmented (P2–P3) or 1-segmented (P4) endopods. Exopods with two outer spines on exp-3; P4 exp-3 inner seta absent. Outer spines of P2–P4 exp-1 and -2 enlarged in ♂, that of P3 exp-1 very large. Endopods P2–P3 sexually dimorphic; inner seta of P2 enp-1 absent in ♂; ♂ P3 endopod 3-segmented; drawn out into short apophysis, without inner seta on enp-1. P1– P4 armature formula as follows (apo = apophysis):</p> <p>The inner seta on P1 exp-2 is minute in T. tumenae. Noodt (1958b) states explicitly that this segment is unarmed in T. dubius but his figure indicates that the inner seta is present.</p> <p>Fifth pair of legs medially free in ♀, fused in ♂. Exopod and baseoendopod fused in both sexes. Exopodal lobe with four elements in ♀, five in ♂. Endopodal lobe with four setae in ♀, with two spines in ♂. Genital field of ♀ comprising separate gonopores covered by opercula bearing three pinnate spines; sixth legs asymmetrical in ♂, represented by unarmed opercula. Caudal rami about as long as wide; with six setae, setae IV- V well developed.</p> <p>Type species: Taurocletodes gallicus Kunz, 1975 = Parepactophanes ? dubia Noodt, 1958b = Taurocletodes dubius (Noodt, 1958b) comb. nov.</p> <p>Other species: T. tumenae sp. nov.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A11C63BA58FFA209FFBBCEFB54ABAA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Karaytuǧ, Süphan;Huys, Rony	Karaytuǧ, Süphan, Huys, Rony (2004): Taxonomic position of and generic distinction between Parepactophanes Kunz, 1935 and Taurocletodes Kunz, 1975 (Copepoda, Canthocamptidae incertae sedis), with description of a new species from the Black Sea. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 140 (4): 469-486, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2003.00101.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2003.00101.x
