identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03A587F5FFB21A66FF4FFEEC857CFC72.text	03A587F5FFB21A66FF4FFEEC857CFC72.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Psammis Sars 1910	<div><p>Genus Psammis Sars, 1910</p> <p>Sars (1910: 339) proposed Psammis for its type (by monotypy) and only species P. longisetosa Sars, 1910 collected from Farsund in southern Norway. The genus has seen the addition of four species since, i.e. P. borealis Klie, 1939 collected north of Iceland, P. kliei Smirnov, 1946 from the East Siberian Sea, P. longifurca Bodin, 1968 from the Bay of Biscay and P. longipes Becker, 1974 from the Peru – Chile (Atacama) Trench (Klie 1939, 1941; Smirnov 1946; Bodin 1968; Becker 1974). Wells (1967) had previously expressed doubts about the validity of the genus, arguing that the only character that separates it from Danielssenia is the number of setae on the exopod of P5; however, Gee (1988) pointed out that species of both genera are probably trophically isolated as indicated by differences in mandibular gnathobase morphology and that this—in conjunction with the fused rami of P5—constitutes sufficient evidence for maintaining the genera separate. Huys &amp; Gee (1993) redefined the boundaries of Psammis and restricted it to its type species and P. longipes. While P. longifurca was fixed as the type of the new genus Bathypsammis Huys &amp; Gee, 1993, both P. borealis and P. kliei were tentatively maintained as species incertae sedis in the Paranannopidae (= Danielsseniinae; cf. Huys 2009) pending further re-examination. In subsequent contributions Gee &amp; Huys (1994) assigned P. kliei to the genus Mucrosenia Gee &amp; Huys, 1994 as species incertae sedis and Huys and Gee (1996) designated P. borealis as the type (by original designation) of their new genus Anapophysia Huys &amp; Gee, 1996. The original descriptions of both sexes of P. longisetosa by Sars (1910: 339–340, plate CCXXV; 1921: 94–95, plate LXV.) were supplemented and largely superseded by a number of subsequent re-examinations including those by Gee (1988: 181–187, Figs. 1–4), Huys and Gee (1993: 72, 75, Figs. 21–22) and Huys et al. (1996: 248–249, Figs. 93B, 98, Table 4).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A587F5FFB21A66FF4FFEEC857CFC72	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Kim, Jong Guk;Lee, Jimin;Huys, Rony	Kim, Jong Guk, Lee, Jimin, Huys, Rony (2021): New records of Pseudotachidiidae from South Korea, including a key to species of the Pseudomesochrinae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida). Zootaxa 5051 (1): 387-422, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5051.1.16
03A587F5FFA01A74FF4FFF14816EF9CE.text	03A587F5FFA01A74FF4FFF14816EF9CE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudomesochra T. Scott 1902	<div><p>Genus Pseudomesochra T. Scott, 1902</p> <p>The genus—initially believed to be intermediate between Mesochra Boeck, 1865 (Canthocamptidae) and Cletodes Brady, 1872 (Cletodidae)—was established by Scott (1902: 461) to accommodate the type species P. longifurcata T. Scott, 1902 (by monotypy) from Loch Etive on the west coast of Scotland. Unaware of this description Sars (1906: 191) proposed the genus Stenheliopsis in the Diosaccidae (= Miraciidae) for its type and only species S. divaricata Sars, 1906 from the south and west coasts of Norway, and subsequently added three new species, S. latifurca Sars, 1911, S. media Sars, 1911 and S. affinis Sars, 1920, all from southern Norway (Sars 1911, 1920). Prior to these contributions Scott &amp; Scott (1901: 343) had already described the morphologically similar species, Jonesiella brucei Scott &amp; Scott, 1901, from east of Hopen, Svalbard Archipelago. Brady (1880: 31) had placed Jonesiella Brady, 1880 (containing the species J. fusiformis Brady, 1880 and J. spinulosa Brady, 1880) in the subfamily Stenheliinae. Sars (1909: 328, 336) considered Jonesiella a junior subjective synonym of Danielssenia in the Tachidiidae, with J. brucei being treated as a valid member of this genus. Note that as a result of reconsidering the status of Danielssenia fusiformis (Brady, 1880) nec Sars (1910) (the type species of Jonesiella) Jonesiella has now been reinstated as a valid genus in the Danielsseniinae (then Paranannopidae) (Huys &amp; Gee 1993: 62).</p> <p>Monard (1927: 149, 159, 164) maintained Stenheliopsis in the Diosaccidae, placed Pseudomesochra in the Canthocamptidae, and considered both Jonesiella and Danielssenia as valid members (without listed species) of the Tachidiidae. In a later report (Monard 1935: 16) it transpired that the author intended to restrict Jonesiella to include only J. brucei, a course of action that is in violation with the Code (ICZN Art. 67.2). Gurney (1932: 50) expressed the dissenting view that Pseudomesochra should probably be assigned to the Cletodidae. The author (Gurney 1932: 49) also proposed the new replacement name Nannomesochra for the junior homonym Pseudomesochra Gurney, 1927 which was introduced for a new genus of Canthocamptidae (Gurney 1927: 542).</p> <p>Having been associated with four different families Lang (1936b: 174; 1936c: 447–448) finally resolved the taxonomic mess surrounding Pseudomesochra by relegating Stenheliopsis to a junior subjective synonym of the latter and placing the genus in the Diosaccidae (= Miraciidae), therefore endorsing Sars’s (1906: 192) earlier opinion that it is most closely related to Stenhelia Boeck, 1865. He also considered Jonesiella brucei a valid species of Pseudomesochra.</p> <p>The familial assignment of the genus remained unchallenged until Willen (1996) transferred it from the Miraciidae as the type of a new subfamily Pseudomesochrinae in the Paranannopidae. Huys et al. (1996: 236), building on the non-availability of the generic name Paranannopus Lang, 1936d [nomen nudum], introduced the new family name Danielsseniidae to replace Paranannopidae [nomen nudum], since family-group names taking their stem from an unavailable (and thus invalid) generic name, also become unavailable (ICZN Arts 11.7.1.1 and 63–64). The family Paranannopidae was relegated to a subfamily of the Pseudotachidiidae by Willen (1999); hence at this rank it should be cited as Danielsseniinae Huys and Gee in Huys et al. (1996) (cf. Huys 2009: 11). Willen (2000) maintained the Pseudomesochrinae as one of four subfamilies recognized in her new classification of the Pseudotachidiidae.A second genus, Keraia Willen &amp; Dittmar, 2009 was added to the Pseudomesochrinae (Willen &amp; Dittmar 2009). The type genus Pseudomesochra has seen the addition of many new taxa since its proposal by Scott (1902) and currently includes 19 species (Table 2). Both P. perplexa Bodin, 1968 and P. gemina Coull, 1973 have been regarded as species incertae sedis by some authors (Willen 1996; Wells 2007) but are recognized as valid here.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A587F5FFA01A74FF4FFF14816EF9CE	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Kim, Jong Guk;Lee, Jimin;Huys, Rony	Kim, Jong Guk, Lee, Jimin, Huys, Rony (2021): New records of Pseudotachidiidae from South Korea, including a key to species of the Pseudomesochrinae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida). Zootaxa 5051 (1): 387-422, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5051.1.16
03A587F5FFA01A7DFF4FF9688115FD52.text	03A587F5FFA01A7DFF4FF9688115FD52.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudomesochra tatianae Drzycimski 1968	<div><p>Pseudomesochra tatianae Drzycimski, 1968</p> <p>(Figs. 8–11)</p> <p>Type locality. Norway, Norway, <a href="http://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=5.2183332&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=60.20667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 5.2183332/lat 60.20667)">Korsfjord</a>, 60º12’24”N, 05º13’06”E; mud at 512 m depth.</p> <p>Original description. Drzycimski (1968): 18–20, Abb. 2.</p> <p>Material examined. 1 ♀ (reg. no. NIBRIV0000853917) dissected on seven slides, 1 ♀ dissected on six slides (reg. no. NIBRIV0000853918), and 2 ♀♀ (reg. no. MInRB-Hr48-L001) preserved together in ethanol. Collected in <a href="http://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=124.0&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=33.5" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 124.0/lat 33.5)">Southern Sea</a> of Korea, 33º30’N, 124º00’E (St. 1 in Fig. 1), 70.8 m depth, 05 June 2015.</p> <p>1: According to Lang (1948: 641) the swimming leg armature pattern is as in P. longifurcata, however neither Scott &amp; Scott (1901) nor any other author(s) described or illustrated P2–P3.</p> <p>2: Armature pattern of P2–P3 according to Lang (1948), presumably based on observations of material from the Gullmar Fjord. Scott (1902) described the P5 as a “… single lamelliform joint, bearing three long apical setae”; it is conceivable that his statement referred only to the endopodal lobe of P5. Lang (1948) reproduced Sars’ (1920) illustration of P5 which was based on P. affinis. The species has traditionally been differentiated from P. divaricata in identification keys (Lang 1948; Coull 1973; Willen 1996) by the presence of a medial spinular patch near the base of the caudal ramus—in reality a feature characterizing P. affinis (Sars 1920: Plate XXXIV; see also 6) but not P. longifurcata (Scott</p> <p>1902: Plate XXIV, Fig. 35).</p> <p>3: Lang’s (1948: 641) statement on the armature of P2 is mistakenly based on Sars’ (1906: plate CXXV) illustration of P3; neither P2 nor P4 were figured by Sars but his text description (p. 193) revealed that P2–P4 exp-1 and -3 lack an inner seta and the armature pattern of the endopods is 1.221. Willen’s (1996: 103) statement that P. gertwilleni shares with P. divaricata the presence of an inner seta on P2–P4 exp-3 is therefore wrong. Coull (1973: Table II) and Vasconcelos et al. (2008) assumed that the exopodal pattern for P2– P4 was 0.1.023 but this requires confirmation. Unlike other known congeners both members of the female P5 are medially fused in P. divaricata (see Sars 1906: plate CXXV).</p> <p>4: As pointed out by Lang (1948) Brady’s (1910) illustrations of P2–P3 are probably incorrect and the armature patterns therefore potentially misleading.</p> <p>5: Sars (1911: Supplement Plate 25) shows a P2 with three inner setae (the distal one being smaller than the other two) on exp-3 resulting in a 323 formula. According to Huys &amp; Boxshall (1991: 119) the maximum number of elements on this segment is seven, the presence of only two inner setae being an apomorphy for the Harpacticoida. It is therefore concluded that Sars must have figured P4 instead of P2; this mistake was adopted by Lang (1948), Coull (1973) and Vasconcelos et al. (2008).</p> <p>6: Lang (1936b: 174) considered this species a junior subjective synonym of P. longifurcata. Characters of both descriptions (Scott 1902; Sars 1920), such as the ornamentation of the caudal ramus, morphology of ♀ P5 and possibly armature of P2–P3, were combined in Lang’s (1948) diagnosis of P. longifurcata and used unwisely in subsequent identification keys (Coull 1973; Willen 1996) (see also 2). This course of action also resulted in the unjustified acceptance of a variable armature of P4 enp-2 (Coull 1973: Table II). Pseudomesochra affinis exhibits only one (vs two in P. longifurcata) inner seta(e) on P4 enp-2 and displays (vs lacks) a proximal spinular patch along the inner margin of the caudal ramus (Sars 1920: Plate XXXIV). Additional differences are found in the number of mandibular basal setae, the ornamentation and armature of the maxilliped, and in the shape of the caudal ramus (straight vs concave outer margin). Based on these differences P. affinis is removed from its synonymy with P. longifurcata and formally reinstated as a valid species.</p> <p>7: According to Lang (1936b: 176, Abb. 7) P3–P4 enp-3 have only one apical seta, resulting in a 211 armature formula. In his monograph however this formula was changed to 221 (Lang 1948: 593, Table X); it is unclear whether this is a typographical error or the result of new observations. Note that Coull (1973: Table II, 603) and Wells (2007: 689) used the 221 pattern in their keys and so did Vasconcelos et al. (2008) in their Table 1 despite Drzycimski (1968: 20) having pointed out the discrepancy.</p> <p>8: Becker &amp; Schriever (1979: 52) erroneously listed the armature formula of P2 exopod as 1.222.</p> <p>9: Becker &amp; Schriever’s (1979: 52) description of P3 shows a discrepancy between the text (1.1.221) and the illustration (1.1.211); the latter is adopted here.</p> <p>10: Willen (1996) describes and illustrates the ♀ antennule as 6-segmented but erroneously uses the 7-segmented condition in her identification key (couplet 10).</p> <p>11: According to Willen &amp; Dittmar’s (2009) diagnosis of Keraia the antennule is 5-segmented; however, it was denoted as 6-segmented by Smirnov (1946) in his text description of K. tamara (although only the first four segments were illustrated in full). Smirnov’s (1946) armature formulae of the endopods of P2 (1.220) and P3–P4 (1.320) were reinterpreted by Coull (1973) as 1.121 and 1.221, respectively. Smirnov also lists the armature pattern of P4 exopod as 1.1.323 but only illustrates it as 1.1.223. The former is adopted here since it corresponds to the one found in Coull’s (1973) specimens from the deep sea off North Carolina. One male was reported by Smirnov (1946) —the only one in the genus Keraia so far—but no morphological information was given.</p> <p>12: These species—both described from the Southern Atlantic—are extremely similar and may well be conspecific. They are here provisionally maintained as separate species based on small differences in cephalothoracic length, length ratio of apical setae on the antennary exopod, relative length of P1 endopodal segments and setal arrangement on the ♀ P5 endopodal lobe.</p> <p>Redescription of female. Total length from anterior margin of rostrum to posterior margin of caudal rami about 615 μm (measured in lateral aspect). Habitus (Fig. 8A–B) slightly pyriform, with distinct separation between prosome and urosome; prosome wider than urosome, greatest width measured at P2-bearing somite. Rostrum (Fig. 8A–C) large, broad, defined at base, with two apical sensilla and two middorsal pores. Cephalothorax bell-shaped, slightly longer than greatest width, and with sensillar pattern and few pores as figured; P2-bearing somite separated from cephalothorax by large arthrodial membrane. Pedigerous somites gradually tapering posteriorly, ornamented with setules; hyaline frills plain; intersomitic membranes of second to fourth somites discernible in dorsal and lateral aspect. Urosome (Figs. 8A, 10A) slightly tapering posteriorly, ornamented with sensilla dorsally and ventrally except for penultimate somite and ventral surface of anal somite. Genital double-somite and abdominal somites 2–3 with multiple transverse rows of fine spinules dorsally. Genital and first abdominal somites completely fused, forming genital double-somite; original segmentation marked externally by slight bilateral constriction and internally by lateral transverse cuticular ribs. Gonopores (Fig. 10C) fused, forming common median genital slit; sixth legs (P6) fused, forming single plate with two bare setae either side. Copulatory pore small, located just posterior to genital slit; connected via short copulatory duct with paired anterior seminal receptacles. Posterior margin of penultimate somite with weakly produced dorsal extension, reaching to proximal fourth of anal somite (Fig. 8A). Anal somite (Fig. 8A) small, cleft medially; with one pair of dorsal sensilla, and minute dorsolateral spinules along posterior margin (not figured); operculum smooth.</p> <p>Antennule (Fig. 8D –D’) slender, 7-segmented; with aesthetasc on segments 4 and 7; segment 5 shortest; posterior seta on segment 6 enlarged, densely plumose and bi-articulated at base. Setal armature as follows: 1-[1], 2-[7 + 2 pinnate], 3-[5], 4-[2 + (1 + ae)], 5-[2], 6-[5 + 1 pinnate + 1 plumose], 7-[5 + (1 + ae)]. Each aesthetasc fused basally to adjacent seta.</p> <p>Antenna (Fig. 9A) comprising coxa, allobasis and free endopod. Coxa represented by small, unornamented sclerite. Abexopodal margin of allobasis with spinules in basal half and one bipinnate seta halfway down its length. Exopod 2-segmented; exp-1 shortest, with two closely set setae subdistally; exp-2 about 1.5 times as long as exp-1, with two lateral and two apical setae, and two spinule rows; all exopodal setae bipinnate.</p> <p>Mandible (Fig. 9B). Coxa with small pointed process medially; gnathobase comprising five bi- or multicuspidate teeth, one bare spine and one pinnate seta, and ornamented with row of minute spinules. Palp comprising basis and 1-segmented rami. Basis broad, arising from coxal peduncle; with two pinnate setae distally. Exopod small; with three inner, one apical and two outer setae; all exopodal setae naked. Endopod twice as long as exopod; with two lateral, one subapical and three apical setae, two of which fused basally; all endopodal setae bare.</p> <p>Maxillule (Fig. 9C) with well-developed praecoxal arthrite bearing two juxtaposed anterior setae; distal armature consisting of eight spines and one pinnate seta. Coxa with cylindrical endite bearing one unipinnate spine subapically and three naked setae apically. Basal endite with seven naked setae distally. Exopod 1-segmented, with two (sub)apical naked setae. Endopod 1-segmented, longer than exopod, with three apical naked setae.</p> <p>Maxilla (Fig. 9D). Syncoxa armed with few minute spinules along distal outer margin; proximal endite broad, with two plumose setae; middle endite with one plumose and one bare setae apically; distal endite with one bare and two plumose setae. Allobasis drawn out into acutely recurved claw bearing three accessory setae. Endopod 1- segmented, with four setae.</p> <p>Maxilliped (Fig. 9E). Syncoxae arising from common bilobate median pedestal; elongate, with spinules at inner distal corner. Basis expanded in distal half, forming lobate expansion along outer margin; with five rows of minute spinules and one long bare seta near distal inner corner. Endopod not expressed.</p> <p>P1 (Fig. 10D) with wide intercoxal arthrite. Praecoxa small, unornamented. Coxa large, with lobate expansion along outer margin; anterior surface with five rows of minute spinules. Basis smaller than coxa, with bipinnate outer seta and stout, pinnate inner spine; anterior surface with pore and spinules near articulation with endopod and at base of inner spine. Exopod 3-segmented, each segment with spinules along outer margin and outer distal corner; exp-1 longest, with few setules along inner margin; exp-2 about as long as wide; exp-3 slightly longer than exp-2; spines of exp-2 and -3 with spinules along outer margin only. Endopod extending beyond distal margin of exopod, 2-segmented; each segment with spinules along outer and distal margins; enp-1 elongate, not reaching to distal margin of exp-2, unarmed; enp-2 as long as enp-1 but slightly more slender.</p> <p>P2–P4 (Fig. 11A–C). Intercoxal sclerite large, with convex distal margin. Coxa large; anterior surface naked in P3–P4 but with four rows of minute spinules in P2. Basis smaller than coxa, with minutely pinnate (P2) or plumose (P3–P4) outer seta and spinules near articulation with endopod. Exopod 3-segmented, each segment with spinules along outer margin and distal outer corner; exp-1 typically longest, with setules along inner margin; exp-2 about as long wide, with pore on anterior surface; exp-3 longer than exp-2. Endopod 3-segmented; longer than exopod in P2, about as long as in P3, and shorter than in P4; each segment armed with spinules along outer margin; segments of each ramus progressively narrower from exp-1 to -3; enp-3 gradually reducing in size from P2 to P4, with pore on anterior surface. Armature formulae of P1–P4 as follows:</p> <p>P5 (Fig. 10E). Intercoxal sclerite minute. Both rami fused, forming single bilobate plate with deep V-shaped notch between exopodal and endopodal lobes. Endopodal lobe broad and rounded, with four long, evenly spaced, naked setae along distal margin; anterior surface with pore between bases of two outermost setae. Exopodal lobe distinctly smaller and subtriangular; with short outer and long apical seta. Outer basal seta naked with its setophore completely absorbed in outer margin of plate.</p> <p>Caudal rami (Figs. 8A–B, 10A–B) divergent, about twice as long as wide; ventral surface with pore near base of seta II and row of fine spinules along posterior margin; with seven setae: seta I very small, arising halfway down length of outer margin; seta II twice as long as caudal ramus, arising from distal fifth of ramus; setae III and VI long and naked; distal setae IV–V well-developed, pinnate and flexible distally (rat-tail setae sensu Willen (1996)); seta IV shorter than seta V; seta VII plumose, as long as caudal ramus, situated halfway down the ramus near the inner margin.</p> <p>Male. Unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. Our Korean specimens agree in virtually every morphological aspect with Pseudomesochra tatianae, originally described from two fjords along the Norwegian west coast (Drzycimski 1968). The species can readily be identified by the following combination of characters: (1) antennule ♀ with 7-segmented; (2) antennary exopod 2-segmented; (3) extremely reduced maxilliped, lacking expression of the endopod; (4) P1 exp-1 with and enp-1 without an inner seta; (5) P2–P4 exp-3 with three outer spines; and (6) P3–P4 exp-3 with three inner setae. Our Korean female specimens deviate in some minor differences from the original description of P. tatianae such as the presence of caudal ramus seta I, the plumose ornamentation of caudal ramus seta VII, and the spinular ornamentation of the maxillipedal basis and P2 coxa. Such discrepancies are undoubtedly based on erroneous observations of morphological minutiae and are insignificant at the taxonomic level.</p> <p>Pseudomesochra tatianae belongs to a group of species that share the following character states: antennule ♀ 7-segmented, P1 enp-1 as long as or longer than enp-2, P2–P4 exp-3 with three outer spines, and two, three, three inner setae, respectively, P2–P3 enp-3 with two inner setae; P4 enp-3 with four elements, P 5 ♀ inner exopodal seta as long as or longer than endopodal setae, and caudal ramus about twice as long as wide. This species group includes P. similis Lang, 1936b, P. laptevensis Willen, 1996 and P. tatianae. The latter differs in the morphology of the maxilliped (reduced and endopod not expressed vs endopod represented by small segment bearing seta or short claw) and the length of the inner exopodal seta of P 5 ♀ (about as long as outer endopodal seta vs distinctly longer in P. similis and P. laptevensis). Pseudomesochra tatianae is also readily distinguished from P. laptevensis by the setal armature of P3–P4 enp-3 (two inner setae in P. tatianae vs only a single seta in P. laptevensis). The species had not been recorded again since its original description although Easton &amp; Thistle (2016) recently reported six individuals from two deep-sea localities (2,698 –3,247 m) off the western coast of the U.S.A. which they attributed to P. cf. tatianae.</p> <p>The genus Pseudomesochra assumes a worldwide distribution as demonstrated by the numerous unidentified species that have been reported, including records from the northeastern Pacific off the western coast of the U.S.A. (Sedlacek 2007; Easton &amp; Thistle 2016), the San Diego Trough (Eckman &amp; Thistle 1988, 1991), the Clarion Clipperton Fracture zone in the north-east Pacific (Radziejewska 2014; Radziejewska &amp; Kotliński 2002), the Kuril Trench in the north-west Pacific Ocean (Kitahashi et al. 2013), the Ryukyu Trench (Kitahashi et al. 2014), South Andaman (Jayabarathi 2016), the equatorial North Pacific (Mullineaux 1987), the Peru Basin (Willen 1996, 2000), the Magellan Region (Straits of Magellan and Beagle Channel) (George 1999, 2005), New Zealand (Webber et al. 2010), the Weddell Sea (Willen 1996), the deep sea off North Carolina (Coull 1973), the Gulf of Mexico (Baguley 2004; Brooks et al. 2009; Degen 2010; Degen et al. 2012; Plum et al. 2015), the Sedlo and Seine Seamounts in the North Atlantic (Büntzow 2011; George 2013), the Porcupine Seabight (Gheerardyn 2007), the Svalbard Archipelago (Kotwicki 2002), the Laptev Sea (Willen 1996), the Anaximenes Seamount in the eastern Mediterranean Sea (George et al. 2018) and a marine cave near Marseille (Janssen et al. 2013). Buhl-Mortensen et al. (2010) found that members of Pseudomesochra represented over 30% of the harpacticoid community found on glass sponge skeletons in the cold-water coral degradation zone. This study was partly based on research by Gheerardyn (2007) (see also Gheerardyn et al. 2009, 2010) who found seven new species in the Porcupine Seabight in the northeast Atlantic, rendering Pseudomesochra one of the most speciose genera in the study area. George et al. (2018) reported ten unnamed species of Pseudomesochra from the Anaximenes Seamount in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. On the lower trench slope of the Kuril Trench (Kitahashi et al. 2013) and on the abyssal seafloor of the Clarion Clipperton Fracture zone (Radziejewska &amp; Kotliński 2002) it is the second most abundant genus accounting for over 10% of total harpacticoid density while in the Ryukyu Trench it is the third most abundant genus across the entire bathymetric range (Kitahashi et al. 2014). Sedlacek (2007) identified six species on the continental slope off central California while Baguley (2004) recorded no less than 23 unidentified species from the deep sea in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Despite this as yet unexplored species diversity in many deepwater areas of the world’s oceans it is remarkable that a great proportion of the species described so far are only known from the type locality (Table 3).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A587F5FFA01A7DFF4FF9688115FD52	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Kim, Jong Guk;Lee, Jimin;Huys, Rony	Kim, Jong Guk, Lee, Jimin, Huys, Rony (2021): New records of Pseudotachidiidae from South Korea, including a key to species of the Pseudomesochrinae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida). Zootaxa 5051 (1): 387-422, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5051.1.16
03A587F5FFA91A7DFF4FFCD48180F841.text	03A587F5FFA91A7DFF4FFCD48180F841.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudomesochrinae Willen 1996	<div><p>Key to species of Pseudomesochrinae</p> <p>Existing identification keys (Lang 1948; Coull 1973; Willen 1996; Wells 2007) are either out of date or unsound due to misinterpretations or observational errors (see footnotes in Table 2). A new key is presented below which, in the absence of male information for most species, is inevitably based on female characters only. Single male specimens have so far been reported on only four occasions: Pseudomesochra gemina (Coull 1973; Willen 1996), P. perplexa (Bodin 1968), and Keraia tamara (Smirnov, 1946) (Smirnov 1946).</p> <p>1. Antennule ♀ with conspicuous projection on posterior distal corner of segment 1; antennary exopod enlarged, exp-2 with at least one very long element at its tip; P1 exp-1 elongate, longer than exp-2 and -3 combined; outer elements of P1 exp-1 and -2 setiform; P2–P4 exp-1 with inner seta......................................... Keraia Willen &amp; Dittmar, 2009 …..2</p> <p>- Antennule ♀ without conspicuous projection on posterior distal corner of segment 1; antennary exopod not enlarged, with apical setae of distal segment not excessively long; P1 exp-1 not elongate, shorter than exp-2 and -3 combined; outer elements of P1 exp-1 and -2 spiniform; P2–P4 exp-1 without inner seta....................... Pseudomesochra T. Scott, 1902 …..5</p> <p>2. P2 enp-2 with one or two inner setae...................................................................... 3</p> <p>- P2 enp-2 with three inner setae................................................. K. longirostrata Apostolov, 2011</p> <p>3. Antennule ♀ 5-segmented; P3–P4 exp-3 with two inner setae.................................................. 4</p> <p>- Antennule ♀ 6-segmented; P3–P4 exp-3 with three inner setae............................ K. tamara (Smirnov, 1946)</p> <p>4 Cephalothorax about 1.3 times as long as maximum width; apical segment of antennary exopod with shorter seta about half the size of longest one; P5 endopodal lobe ♀ with one lateral and three apical setae................................................................................................ K. longiseta (Vasconcelos, George &amp; Santos, 2008)</p> <p>- Cephalothorax about 1.1 times as long as maximum width; apical segment of antennary exopod with longest seta only slightly larger than shorter one; P5 endopodal lobe ♀ with all four setae arranged around apical margin................................................................................................ K. ricardae Willen &amp; Dittmar, 2009</p> <p>5 P2–P4 endopods 2-segmented........................................................................... 6</p> <p>- P2–P4 endopods 3-segmented........................................................................... 8</p> <p>6 P4 enp-2 with one inner seta; inner margin of caudal ramus with spinular patch near base........... P. affinis (Sars, 1920) *</p> <p>- P4 enp-2 with two inner setae; inner margin of caudal ramus without spinular patch near base......................... 7</p> <p>7 P2 exp-3 with inner seta; caudal ramus slightly expanded proximally and with concave outer margin; P5 endopodal lobe ♀ with three very long setae............................................................. P. longifurcata T. Scott, 1902</p> <p>- P2 exp-3 without inner seta; caudal ramus not expanded at base and with straight inner and outer margins; P5 endopodal lobe ♀ with long middle seta flanked by two shorter ones, all of which markedly shorter than in preceding species............................................................................................ P. divaricata (Sars, 1906)</p> <p>8 P1 exp-2 with inner seta................................................................................ 9</p> <p>- P1 exp-2 without inner seta............................................................................ 16</p> <p>9 Antennule ♀ 5-segmented; P1 enp-1 with inner seta.......................................... P. media (Sars, 1911)</p> <p>- Antennule ♀ 6- or 7-segmented; P1 enp-1 without inner seta.................................................. 10</p> <p>10 P2–P4 exp-3 with one inner seta; P2–P3 enp-3 with one inner seta; P4 enp-3 with three elements.... P. latifurca (Sars, 1911)</p> <p>- P2–P4 exp-3 with two, three, three setae, respectively; P2–P3 enp-3 with two inner setae; P4 enp-3 with four elements.... 11</p> <p>11 Antennule ♀ 6-segmented; P2–P4 exp-3 with two outer spines................................................ 12</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A587F5FFA91A7DFF4FFCD48180F841	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Kim, Jong Guk;Lee, Jimin;Huys, Rony	Kim, Jong Guk, Lee, Jimin, Huys, Rony (2021): New records of Pseudotachidiidae from South Korea, including a key to species of the Pseudomesochrinae (Copepoda: Harpacticoida). Zootaxa 5051 (1): 387-422, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5051.1.16
