identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
013487FFB724FFF7FEE9D227FD9F9855.text	013487FFB724FFF7FEE9D227FD9F9855.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cystisomatidae Willemoes-Suhm 1875	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Family  CYSTISOMATIDAE Willemöes­Suhm, 1875</p>
            <p>Diagnosis</p>
            <p>Body very large, up to 150 mm, cuticle exceptionally transparent, pereonites and pleonites with short spines mid­dorsally and laterally. Head very large, as long as first 5­6 pereonites, rounded dorsally, flattened or slightly concave ventrally, with dentate border; ventral surface, anterior to mouthparts, with large anterior spine followed by glandular spine (A2), and sometimes row of up to 5 oral spines. Eyes comprise two oval areas dorsally and partly laterally. Pereonites 1 &amp; 2 fused. Coxae fused with pereonites. Antennae 1 with small peduncular article and flagellum composed of one long, lanceolate proximal article, and one or two minute distal articles. Antennae 2 reduced to small spine on ventral surface. Mandibles without palp in both sexes, but with well­developed molar. Maxillae 1 with palp and well­developed outer lobe, inner lobe absent. Maxillae 2 with inner lobe reduced to small tubercle. Maxilliped well­developed, with long inner lobe, widening distally with concave distal margin. Gnathopods distinctly chelate, relatively small. Pereopods 3­7 consist of long narrow articles. Pereopod 5 the longest. Pereopod 7 of mature females prehensile, with dactylus closing against concave distal margin of propodus. Uropod 2 absent. Uropods 1 and 3 having endopod fused with peduncle. Telson very small, rounded. Gills on pereonites 4­6. Oostegites on pereonites 2­5, those on pereonites 4 and 5 rudimentary.</p>
            <p> One genus:  Cystisoma . </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/013487FFB724FFF7FEE9D227FD9F9855	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	Zeidler, Wolfgang	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2003): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod family Cystisomatidae Willemöes­Suhm, 1875 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea). Zootaxa 141: 1-43, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.156376
013487FFB723FFFCFEE9D70AFAF59E60.text	013487FFB723FFFCFEE9D70AFAF59E60.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cystisoma Guerin-Meneville	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Genus  Cystisoma Guérin­Méneville</p>
            <p> Cystisoma Guérin­Méneville, 1842: 215 . – Dana 1852: 315. Dana 1853: 981 &amp; 1442. Willemöes­ Suhm, 1875: 24. Stebbing 1888: 1318. Barnard 1916: 286. Barnard 1932: 268. Pirlot 1938: 364. Pirlot 1939: 33. Bowman &amp; Gruner 1973: 26. Vinogradov et al. 1982: 244. Vinogradov 1999: 1176. </p>
            <p> Cystosoma – Bate, 1862: 311. Willemöes­Suhm 1874a: 182. Gerstaecker 1886: 490. </p>
            <p> Thaumops Willemöes­Suhm, 1873: 206 . – Willemöes­Suhm 1874b: 634. </p>
            <p> Thaumatops – Martens, 1873: 189. Bovallius 1886: 3. Bovallius 1887b: 557. Bovallius 1889: 40. Stephensen 1918: 56. Schellenberg 1927: 620. Spandl 1927: 170. Pirlot 1929: 89. </p>
            <p> Cysteosoma Bovallius 1886: 3 . </p>
            <p> Thaumonectes Senna, 1903: 93 . </p>
            <p> Physosoma Woltereck, 1904: 553 . </p>
            <p>Type species</p>
            <p> Cystisoma neptunus Guérin­Méneville, 1842 , by monotypy. Type material could not be found at the MNHN, BMNH or ANSP and is considered lost. This is not an ideal situation since the true identity of  C. neptunus is uncertain. However, there is no doubt that  C. neptunus , as described and figured by Guérin­Méneville (1842), belongs to the modern generic concept of  Cystisoma . </p>
            <p>Synonyms</p>
            <p> Cystosoma and  Cysteosoma are variations in the spelling of  Cystisoma . </p>
            <p> Willemöes­Suhm (1873) proposed the genus  Thaumops for his new species  T. pellucida , unaware that this was a synonym of  Cystisoma . He subsequently (1875) realised his error. Martens (1873) corrected the spelling to  Thaumatops . </p>
            <p> Thaumonectes and  Physosoma are names given to larval forms. </p>
            <p>Sexual dimorphism</p>
            <p> There are very few reliable morphological characters to distinguish the sexes of species of  Cystisoma , and juveniles (&lt;20 mm) are impossible to sex. The reproductive systems have been described by Brusca (1981b) and provide the only reliable means to distinguish the sexes. Unfortunately these are sometimes difficult to see in damaged specimens. Briefly, the male reproductive system consists of paired testes, suspended in pereonites 1­3, with paired sperm ducts extending posteriorly to pereonite 7, where they terminate in the gonopores, each elevated in a small papilla. Generally the male gonopores are readily visible in all but juvenile (&lt;20­30 mm) and damaged specimens. The female reproductive system is more complex. Ovaries are located in pereonites 3­4, and the oviducts terminate in gonopores on pereonite 5, which open on the medial side of small brood plates, which are pressed against the body. Mature specimens have a brood sac between the second gnathopods, which is covered by two pairs of brood plates arising posteriorly on pereonites 2 and 3 (Fig. 3). These brood plates are present as developing buds in immature specimens and provide a reliable character to distinguish females. Females as small as 30 mm can have the first two pairs of brood plates present as small buds. The presence of the gonopore is an additional character but is less obvious, especially in damaged specimens. </p>
            <p>In addition to the above, in mature females, pereopod 7 is transformed into a prehensile appendage, with an expanded, gland­filled propodus and short hooked dactylus. Males possess a much narrower propodus without glands, and a longer straighter dactylus. As this character is only seen in mature females it is not very useful for distinguishing the sexes.</p>
            <p> Various authors have also suggested other possible sexual differences such as the length of the first antennae; the head shape, the presence of glands in the antennae, pereopods and uropods, and the shape of the basis of pereopod 7. Sometimes smaller specimens have relatively longer first antennae and occasionally smaller males (40­45 mm) have slightly longer antennae than females of the same size. Woltereck (1903) and Vinogradov et al. (1982) suggest that males may have more wedge­shaped heads, but this could not be verified from the material examined. In fact the type male of the new species described here has a rather rounded head. Adult females of  C. pellucida have highly developed glands in the distal part of the propodus of pereopods 3­7, and apically on the first antennae and the exopods of the uropods. These glands are not evident in the females of other species and males of  C. pellucida are unknown, so it is impossible to determine whether or not these glands are present. The only record of males of  C. pellucida are by Pirlot (1938), Brusca (1967b) and Vinogradov et al. (1982), but they do not provide a description or illustrations, and these specimens were not available for examination. The basis of pereopod 7 is relatively broad in the males of two species,  C. latipes and  C. gershwinae sp. nov. , for which the females are unknown. In all other species the basis of pereopod 7 is relatively slender, like the following articles, and there do not seem to be any sexual differences. </p>
            <p>Remarks</p>
            <p> Cystisoma is a readily recognisable genus, but distinguishing its species can be a frustrating process as they are surprisingly similar morphologically (Brusca 1981b). Characters that might prove useful to distinguish species are as follows. </p>
            <p> First antennae: The length of the first antennae seems to vary slightly with age, with juveniles tending to have relatively longer antennae. In adults the length of the first antennae seems to be a useful character. They are equal in length to about half of the head in  C. magna ; 0.5­0.7x the head in  C. longipes ; subequal to the head in  C. fabricii and  C. pellucida , much longer than the head, extending to the pleon, in  C. latipes , and extending almost to pleonite 2 in  C. gershwinae sp. nov. However, this is not always a reliable character as juvenile males (40­45 mm) attributable to  C. magna ,  C. longipes and  C. fabricii occasionally have antennae considerably longer than the head, sometimes extending to pereonite 3. Apart from the long antennae, and smaller size, these specimens are like the adults and in the absence of other characters have been identified with them.  Cystisoma latipes and  C. gershwinae sp. nov. are also the only species to have antennae with a brush of aesthestascs on the inner surface. In all other species only a few scattered aesthestascs, or none at all, were found. The antennae of  C. pellucida are swollen distally due to the presence of a gland, a distinguishing feature of this species. </p>
            <p> Second antennae: The second antennae seem to be represented by small ventral spines posterior to the usually larger, anterior spines, on the ventral surface of the head. Stephensen (1918) who first classified the ventral spines concluded that the glandular spine is “undoubtedly a rudiment of ant. 2, and into which the antennal gland opens out”. A number of specimens were examined in which a gland is clearly attached to the glandular spine, confirming that this is probably the remnant of the second antennae. In  C. latipes and  C. gershwinae sp. nov. the glandular spine is similar in size to, or slightly larger than, the anterior spine. In all other species the anterior spine is clearly the largest ventral spine. </p>
            <p> Head shape: When viewed dorsally, the head can be rounded with a convex anterior margin as in  C. longipes and  C. magna , or it may be more rectangular in shape, with a relatively straight, or almost concave anterior margin as, in all other species. </p>
            <p> Eye shape: When viewed dorsally, the eye facets of  C. latipes occupy two obliquely oval areas almost touching anteriorly, and widely separated posteriorly. In all other species the eye facets occupy most of the dorsal head surface, consisting of two almost oval areas barely separated along the middle of the head. </p>
            <p> Marginal spines on head: The number of marginal spines increases slightly with an increase in size, and varies from eleven in  C. gershwinae sp. nov. to 14­18 in  C. longipes . There is considerable overlap between species and this is not a useful character. </p>
            <p> Ventral spines on head: The ventral spines consist of an anterior spine (usually the largest), followed by a glandular spine (most likely A2), and an arch of oral spines (in most species). The number of oral spines varies from 2­5. They are absent in  C. fabricii and  C. gershwinae sp. nov. Thus, the absence of oral spines could be used to distinguish these two species. It seems that oral spines are always present in the other species, with a likely increase in number with increase in size, although one unidentifiable juvenile, measuring only 17 mm, had 2 and 3 oral spines (‘Discovery’ specimen, unregistered BMNH). </p>
            <p> Mouthparts: The mouthparts are remarkably similar except for the number of mandibular teeth. Most species have only one prominent, medial tooth on the mandible, rarely with a small adjacent one (e.g.  C. fabricii , SAM A42204). Additional lateral teeth occur in  C. latipes (one only), and  C. longipes (1­3), and this character can be used to distinguish these two species. </p>
            <p> Female brood plates: The brood plates of mature specimens of all species, except for  C. latipes and  C. gershwinae sp. nov. , species for which the female is unknown, were examined and no differences were found. Because brood plates are not fully developed except for mature specimens, and are restricted to females, they are not a useful character anyway. </p>
            <p>Pereopod length: There is very little variation in the relative lengths of the pereopods across the whole range of species regardless of sex or size.</p>
            <p> Pereopod articles: Only minor variations were found in the relative lengths of pereopod articles. In  C. fabricii and  C. pellucida the propodus of pereopod 5 is clearly longer than the carpus; in all other species the propodus is subequal in length to the carpus. In  C. gershwinae sp. nov. the carpus and propodus of pereopod 5 are subequal in length to the basis; in all other species the basis is clearly the longest article. In  C. pellucida the propodus of pereopod 6 is slightly longer than the carpus; in all other species the carpus and propodus are subequal in length. </p>
            <p>Pereopod 7 of females: In mature females this pereopod is modified, presumably for the transfer of eggs from the oviduct to the brood chamber. The propodus is swollen distally, forming a concave distal margin, and the dactylus is curved, presumably to hold the egg against the concave surface of the propodus. Although limited to females, Vinogradov et al. (1982) suggested that this might be a useful character, but the morphology of pereopod 7 changes considerably as females mature, and appear to be similar at the same stage in all species examined thus, making it an unreliable character.</p>
            <p> Uropods: There is very little variation in the relative lengths of the peduncle and the exopods or endopods. In most species the exopods are slightly longer than the endopods but in  C. pellucida the exopods are considerably longer and swollen distally because of the presence of a gland, making it a readily recognisable character. In uropod 1 the exopod length relative to the peduncle is about one­third in  C. magna and one­half in  C. pellucida , with all other species inbetween (about 0.4x). In uropod 3 the exopod length relative to the peduncle is usually slightly more than half in most species, except for  C. magna (slightly less than half) and  C. pellucida (about two­thirds). </p>
            <p> There are twelve nominal species referable to  Cystisoma . Of these, the type material of seven species has been confirmed as lost, but only two species,  C. spinosus (Fabricius, 1775) and  C. neptunus Guérin­Méneville, 1842 , are insufficiently described, making determination impossible. In addition, two names have been given to larval forms,  Thaumonectes ducis aprutii Senna, 1903 and  Physosoma Woltereck, 1904 . </p>
            <p>Six species are recognised in this review including one described as new. All appear to inhabit relatively shallow waters (200­1000 m) of the world’s oceans, tending towards the temperate and tropical regions. Occasionally specimens are caught in surface waters, or are found washed up onshore after storms. Very little is known about their biology. No gelatinous hosts have been recorded and their association with gelatinous plankton remains to be confirmed.</p>
            <p> Because species of  Cystisoma are very similar morphologically (Brusca 1981b), detailed descriptions are not given, except for the species described here as new to science. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/013487FFB723FFFCFEE9D70AFAF59E60	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	Zeidler, Wolfgang	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2003): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod family Cystisomatidae Willemöes­Suhm, 1875 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea). Zootaxa 141: 1-43, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.156376
013487FFB72FFFF9FEE9D39FFC089D70.text	013487FFB72FFFF9FEE9D39FFC089D70.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cystisoma pellucida	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Cystisoma pellucida (Willemöes ­Suhm) (Figs 1­3) </p>
            <p> Thaumops pellucida Willemöes­Suhm, 1873: 207 ­208. – Willemöes­Suhm, 1874a: 182. Willemöes­Suhm 1874b: 629 ­635, pl. 49, 50. </p>
            <p> Cystosoma pellucida – Kingsley 1884: 73 ­74, fig. 99. </p>
            <p> Thaumatops pellucida – Bovallius 1886: 8 ­10. Bovallius 1887a: 14. Woltereck 1903: 452 ­454, fig. 1. Stephensen 1918: 64 ­66, figs 19, 24­27. Schellenberg 1927: 622, fig. 31. Spandl 1927: 172 ­ 173, fig. 10. </p>
            <p> Cystisoma pellucidum – Barnard 1932: 272 (spec. 1 &amp; 6). Pirlot 1938: 364 ­365. Thorsteinson 1941: 92 ­93. Hurley 1956: 10. Brusca 1967a: 387. Brusca 1967b: 451. Brusca 1973: 14. Brusca 1981a: 19 (key), 39, fig. 5b. Brusca 1981b: 358. </p>
            <p> Cystisoma pellucida – Vinogradov et al. 1982: 246 ­248, fig. 121. Zeidler 1992: 96, fig. 9. Vinogradov 1999: 1177, fig. 4.74. </p>
            <p> Cystisoma spinosum [misidentification] – Stebbing 1888: 1325 ­1329, pl. 155 (spec. B). </p>
            <p> Thaumatops spinosa [misidentification] – Vosseler 1901: 94. Woltereck 1903: 449 ­450, 453 (key). </p>
            <p>Type material</p>
            <p> The unique type, an ovigerous female measuring 84 mm, could not be found in the BMNH and is presumed lost. Fortunately the description and figures given by Willemöes­ Suhm (1874b) are clearly of  C. pellucida as understood by modern taxonomists. As the characteristic features of this species are very distinctive its status is not in doubt, despite the loss of the type. The type locality is off Cape St. Vincent, 35º47’N, 8º23’W, in a trawl from 1090 fathoms. </p>
            <p>Material examined (54 specimens)</p>
            <p>North Atlantic: 3 lots (BMNH), 5 lots (ZMUC), 9 specimens. North Indian: 1 lot (ZMUC), 1 specimen. South Indian: 10 lots (ZMUC), 11 specimens. Central Indo­ Pacific: 2 lots (USNM), 13 lots (ZMUC), 21 specimens. South Pacific: 6 lots (ZMUC), 6 specimens. Tasman Sea: l lot (AM), 3 lots (ZMUC), 4 specimens. Great Australian Bight: 1 lot (SAMA), 1 lot (ZMUC), 2 specimens.</p>
            <p>Diagnosis (female only)</p>
            <p>Body length up to 85 mm. Head about as long as deep; almost as long as first six pereonites combined; oval when viewed laterally, with slightly convex anterior margin when viewed dorsally. Marginal spines, 10­15; anterior ventral spine larger than glandular spine, clearly the largest; oral spines, 3­5 in arched row. Eyes oval, barely separated medially. First antennae subequal in length to head, ending with swollen gland, with one or two tiny terminal articles. Mandibles with only one medial tooth. Pereopod 5 &amp; 6; carpus distinctly shorter than propodus. Urosome (with uropods) slightly longer than pleon. Uropod 1; exopod length twice length endopod, and about half­length of peduncle, slightly swollen terminally with gland. Uropod 3 similar to U1, but exopod length about 0.6x length of peduncle.</p>
            <p>Male unknown (see remarks)</p>
            <p>Remarks</p>
            <p>There has been some confusion regarding the correct citation of this species (e.g. Vinogradov et al. 1982). Willemöes­Suhm’s description of this species was received by the Royal Society of London on 27th February, 1873. An abbreviated version was published in the Societies’ Proceedings in 1873 and a more detailed description with figures in the Transactions in 1874. Thus, the correct citation for this species is Willemöes­Suhm, 1873.</p>
            <p> This is one of the most distinctive species of  Cystisoma , readily distinguished by the characteristic shape of the first antennae and the exopods of the uropods, because of the presence of a swollen gland. The distal part of the propodus of pereopods 3­7 is also slightly swollen, because of the presence of a gland, but this is not always very obvious, except for pereopod 7 of mature females, in which the propodus becomes considerably swollen terminally, a feature also found in all other species of  Cystisoma . </p>
            <p> Males of this species could not be determined in any of the collections examined. Willemöes­Suhm (1874b), Pirlot (1938) and Brusca (1967b) refer to males of  C. pellucida but do not provide any information as to how they differ from females, if at all! These authors may have mistaken immature females for males, or made an error in identification. However, Vinogradov et al. (1982) also refer to males, and provide some information on sexual differences. They mention that the head of males is relatively lower, the antennae are much longer than the head and the exopod of U1 is only slightly longer than the endopod. Unfortunately this material was not available for study. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/013487FFB72FFFF9FEE9D39FFC089D70	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	Zeidler, Wolfgang	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2003): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod family Cystisomatidae Willemöes­Suhm, 1875 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea). Zootaxa 141: 1-43, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.156376
013487FFB72AFFE6FEE9D55DFB769E60.text	013487FFB72AFFE6FEE9D55DFB769E60.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cystisoma longipes (Bovallius) Bovallius	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Cystisoma longipes (Bovallius) (Figs 4­6) </p>
            <p> Thaumatops longipes Bovallius, 1886: 13 ­16, figs 15­23. – Bovallius 1887a: 15. Bovallius 1889: 47 ­52, pl. 3, fig. 1­6 (spec. A, non B). Walker 1909: 50 (list), 52. </p>
            <p> Cystisoma longipes – Chevreux 1935: 169. Vinogradov et al. 1982: 253 ­254, fig. 124. Vinogradov 1993: 42, 43 (Table). Vinogradov 1999: 1176, fig. 4.72. </p>
            <p> Thaumatops bovallii Woltereck, 1903: 457 . – Stephensen 1918: 59 ­62, fig. 20. Schellenberg 1927: 621 ­622, fig. 30. </p>
            <p> Cystisoma africanum Barnard, 1916: 287 ­289. – Dick 1970: 54. </p>
            <p> Cystisoma magna [misidentification] – Shoemaker 1945: 233 ­234. </p>
            <p>Type material</p>
            <p> The unique type of  C. longipes , measuring about 40 mm, is in the ZMUC (CRU 2829). It appears to be a young female as the second pereonites have a small bud ventrally, representing the developing brood plates. The type locality is “off the west coast of Australia ”, 30ºS, 90ºE. </p>
            <p>Type material of synonyms</p>
            <p> The two female syntypes of  C. bovallii could not be found at the ZMB or ZMH and are presumed lost. Woltereck’s (1903) description is very brief and there are no figures. The species is characterised by having a mandible with one central and one lateral tooth, and antennae slightly shorter than the head; characters which apply only to  C. longipes . Woltereck (1903) probably failed to appreciate this synonymy because Bovallius (1886) wrongly stated that the first two pereonite segments of his species were not fused. </p>
            <p> The unique type of  C. africanum , a female measuring in excess of 90 mm, is in the BMNH (1933.1.25.902 – previously SAM A239). It is not a moult as suggested by Dick (1970). Despite being in several pieces there is not problem identifying it as  C. longipes . </p>
            <p>Material examined (78 specimens)</p>
            <p> Types. Holotype female of  Thaumatops longipes , approximately 40 mm: in spirit, damaged. Holotype female of  C. africanum , approximately 90 mm, from the Indian Ocean, near South African coast, 33ºS, “Buffalo River (East London) N.W. by N. distant 21 miles, 490 fathoms. S.S. “Pieter Faure”. 22/4/01 ”: in several pieces in spirit. </p>
            <p>Other material examined. North Atlantic: 8 lots (USNM), 31 lots (ZMUC), 56 specimens. South Atlantic: 2 lots (SAM), 2 lots (USNM), 1 lot (ZMUC), 5 specimens. South Indian: 5 lots (SAM), 1 lot (SAMA), 4 lots (ZMUC), 12 specimens. South Pacific: 3 lots (ZMUC), 3 specimens.</p>
            <p>Diagnosis</p>
            <p>Body length of females up to 100 mm, of males up to 75 mm. Head almost as long as deep; about as long as first five pereonites combined; oval when viewed laterally, with evenly convex anterior margin when viewed dorsally. Marginal spines, 14­18; anterior ventral spine larger than glandular spine, clearly the largest; oral spines, 2­5 in arched row. Eyes oval, barely separated medially for anterior half, slightly wider apart posteriorly. First antennae as long as 0.7x length of head in immature specimens, but only about halflength head, or less, in mature specimens, with two small terminal articles. Mandibles with one medial tooth and at least one lateral tooth, very large specimens with 2­3 lateral teeth. Pereopods 5 &amp; 6 with articles slightly more slender than in other species. Pereopod 5; carpus subequal in length to propodus. Urosome (with uropods) about as long as pleon. Uropod 1; exopod slightly longer than endopod (slightly shorter than endopod in juveniles), about 0.4x length of peduncle. Uropod 3 similar to U1, but exopod length slightly more than half­length of peduncle.</p>
            <p>Remarks</p>
            <p> This species is similar to  C. magna in that mature specimens have relatively short first antennae. In all other species the first antennae are as long or much longer than the head. Juvenile specimens often have longer antennae, and amongst the material examined there are two specimens in which the first antennae are slightly longer than the head (SAM A42196, male 26 mm; SAM A42197, female ~ 35 mm). These two specimens may have been identified with  C. latipes on the basis of antennal length but the shape of the head and pereopod articles are characteristic of  C. longipes . </p>
            <p> The shape of the eyes (Fig. 6) also tend to resemble  C. latipes more than other species because they are slightly more separated medially towards the posterior part of the head (e.g. SAM A42198, female 99 mm). </p>
            <p> Cystisoma longipes is the only species in which there is more than one lateral mandibular tooth (in large specimens) (Figs 4, 6). In all other species, except for  C. latipes , lateral mandibular teeth are absent. </p>
            <p>As the name suggests the pereopods seem to be relatively longer than in other species. But this is because the articles, particularly of pereopods 5 and 6, are slightly more slender. There are no differences in the relative lengths of pereopods, or pereopod articles, when compared to other species.</p>
            <p> The type of  C. africanum (Fig. 5) differs slightly from typical specimens in that the carpus of pereopod 6 is distinctly shorter than the propodus (as in  C. pellucida ). </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/013487FFB72AFFE6FEE9D55DFB769E60	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	Zeidler, Wolfgang	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2003): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod family Cystisomatidae Willemöes­Suhm, 1875 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea). Zootaxa 141: 1-43, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.156376
013487FFB735FFECFEE9D457FE82999D.text	013487FFB735FFECFEE9D457FE82999D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cystisoma fabricii Stebbing	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Cystisoma fabricii Stebbing (Figs 7 &amp; 8) </p>
            <p> Cystisoma fabricii Stebbing, 1888: 1333 ­1334. – Barnard 1932: 272 ­273. Hurley 1956: 10. Brusca 1967a: 387. Brusca 1967b: 451. Brusca 1973: 9 (Table), 13. Lorz &amp; Pearcy 1975: 1444 (Table). Brusca 1981a: 19 (key), 39, fig. 5c, e. Brusca 1981b: 358 ­375, figs 2­15. Vinogradov et al. 1982: 251 ­252, fig. 123. Vinogradov 1990: 57. Vinogradov 1999: 1176, fig. 4.71. </p>
            <p> Thaumatops fabricii – Woltereck 1903: 457. Stephensen 1918: 63 ­64, figs 22, 23. Schellenberg 1927: 623, figs 32, 33. Pirlot 1929: 89. </p>
            <p> Thaumatops loveni Bovallius, 1886: 10 ­13, figs 1­14. – Bovallius 1887a: 15. Bovallius 1889: 52 ­ 58, pl. 4, figs 1­25. Stephensen 1918: 59. </p>
            <p> Thaumatops coalita Woltereck, 1903: 458 , fig. 4. </p>
            <p> Cystisoma coalitum – Siegfried 1963: 6 (list). Dick 1970: 55. </p>
            <p> Cystisoma spinosum [misidentification] – Stebbing 1888: 1330 ­1331, pl. 156 (spec. D). </p>
            <p>Type material</p>
            <p> The unique type, a female measuring about 65 mm, is in the BMNH (1889.5.15.199). Stebbing (1888) originally described this species, referring to it as “  Cystisoma . Specimen G”, and proposed the name  C. fabricii “should it be thought necessary to make this a separate species”. Although Stebbing gives no illustrations, the absence of oral spines readily distinguished it from all its congeners, and thus it has been recognised as a valid species by subsequent authors. The type locality is “off the Meangis Islands, north of Papua ”, due south of Mindanao, the Philippines, 4°33’N, 127°6’E; depth, 500 fathoms, trawled. (Challenger Stn. 214). </p>
            <p>Type material of synonyms</p>
            <p> The unique type of  C. lovenii , a female measuring about 105 mm, appears lost. Stephensen (1918: 59) made a search for it in the ZMUC and all likely museums in Sweden without success. A recent search of the ZMUC and SMNH collections was also unsuccessful. The specimen figured by Bovallius (1886) is obviously a female, as the brood plates are clearly illustrated and the morphology of pereopod 7 is that of a mature female. As suggested by Stephensen (1918), Bovallius is wrong regarding pereonites 1 and 2 separate, as he had made this error with  C. longipes . The mandible figured by Bovallius (1886, fig. 3) is most likely the second maxilliped, or part of the lower lip. He correctly illustrates the mandible later in his monograph (Bovallius 1889, pl. 4, fig. 4). It appears to have only one spine medially, although this is not clearly evident from his illustration. Regarding the presence of oral spines, Bovallius says “on the underside of the head there is no shorter row of spines as in  Th. neptunus and  Th. pellucida ”. This character, combined with the single mandibular spine, and the relatively short first antennae, confirms that  C. lovenii is the same as  C. fabricii . Although Bovallius’s species has priority, it has not been mentioned in the literature since Stephensen (1918), and the type is lost.  Cystisoma fabricii however, is a well­established, readily recognisable species. Consistent with nomenclatural stability Stebbing’s (1888) name should continue to be used for this species (ICZN, article 79c amended). </p>
            <p> The types of  C. coalita , a female less than 40 mm long and four males measuring 26, 27, 32 and 40 mm, could not be found at the ZMB or ZMH and are presumed lost. The ventral spines consist of only one large anterior spine and the glandular spine. Oral spines are absent, and the first antennae are subequal in length to the head. The latter two characters apply only to  C. fabricii . The fusion of pereonites is an unreliable character as the sutures are often difficult to see in all but adult specimens. Also, juveniles tend to have more anterior pereonites fused. Amongst the material examined was a larva (13 mm) with pereonites 1­5 fused, and juveniles of  C. fabricii (25­30 mm) with pereonites 1­3 fused. Thus,  Cystisoma coalita should be considered a synonym of  C. fabricii . </p>
            <p>Material examined (234 specimens)</p>
            <p> Types. Holotype female of  C. fabricii , approximately 65 mm: in spirit, damaged. </p>
            <p>Other material examined. North Atlantic: 5 lots (BMNH), 27 lots (ZMUC), 54 specimens. South Atlantic: 2 lots (BMNH), 2 lots (SAM), 12 lots (ZMUC), 20 specimens. North Indian: 9 lots (ZMUC), 17 specimens. South Indian: 1 lot (SAM), 6 lots (ZMUC), 15 specimens. Central Indo­Pacific: 1 lot (USNM), 23 lots (ZMUC), 43 specimens. North Pacific: 3 lots (CAS), 20 lots (LACM), 5 lots (SAMA), 9 lots (USNM), 5 lots (ZMUC), 56 specimens. South Pacific: 1 lot (BMNH), 7 lots (USNM), 8 lots (ZMUC), 21 specimens. Tasman Sea: 3 lots (ZMUC), 7 specimens.</p>
            <p>Diagnosis</p>
            <p>Body length of females up to 90 mm; of males up to 50 mm. Head as long as deep; almost as long as first six pereonites combined; oval when viewed laterally, with evenly convex anterior margin when viewed dorsally. Marginal spines 10­14; anterior ventral spine larger than glandular spine, clearly the largest; oral spines absent. Eyes oval, barely separated medially. First antennae subequal in length to head, with one small terminal article. Mandibles with only one medial tooth. Pereopod 5; carpus distinctly shorter than propodus. Urosome (with uropods) slightly shorter than pleon. Uropod 1; exopod subequal in length to endopod, about 0.3­0.4x length of peduncle. Uropod 3 similar to U1, exopod length 0.4­0.5x peduncle.</p>
            <p>Remarks</p>
            <p> This species is readily distinguished by the lack of oral spines, a character shared only with  C. gershwinae sp. nov. , but in that species the first antennae are considerably longer than the head. The anterior spine of  C. fabricii is much larger than the glandular spine (A2), and usually relatively larger than found in other species. </p>
            <p> In all of the material examined the carpus of pereopod 5 is distinctly shorter than the propodus, a character only shared with  C. pellucida . In all other species these articles are subequal in length, or the propodus is slightly shorter than the carpus. </p>
            <p>One specimen, a female measuring 66 mm (SAM A42204), has mandibles with a small tooth adjacent to the main medial one. It seems to be an abnormality of the medial tooth rather than an undeveloped lateral tooth. Lateral mandibular teeth are clearly absent in this species.</p>
            <p>According to water­colour drawings and colour notes made from living material by Stephensen, the specimens are colourless, except for articles 4 and 5 of pereopod 4, and articles 4­6 of pereopods 5­7, which are pink/red at the margins.</p>
            <p> Cystisoma fabricii is an unusual species in that males seem to reach only half the maximum size of females. </p>
            <p>Distribution</p>
            <p> This species is found in the tropical and temperate regions of the Atlantic Ocean, the tropical part of the Indian Ocean and mainly in the tropical parts of the Pacific Ocean, including the Tasman Sea. It is relatively common off southern California where it is the most common species of  Cystisoma (Brusca 1981b) . </p>
            <p> Cystisoma magna (Woltereck) (Fig. 9) </p>
            <p> Thaumatops magna Woltereck, 1903: 454 ­455, figs 2, 3. – Spandl 1927: 171 ­172, figs 8, 9a­d.  Cystisoma magna – Vinogradov et al. 1982: 248 ­250, fig. 122; Vinogradov 1990: 57.  Cystisoma spinosum [misidentification] – Stebbing 1888: 1319 ­1325, pl. 154 (spec. A), 1331­1332 </p>
            <p>(spec. E).</p>
            <p> Cystisoma pellucidum [misidentification] – Barnard 1932: 272 (spec. 2, 3, 5). </p>
            <p>Type material</p>
            <p> The two syntypes of  C. magna , both females measuring about 80 mm (?) and 120 mm (photographed), could not be found at the ZMB or ZMH and are presumed lost. Despite the limited description and figures, the combined characteristic features of relatively short antennae, presence of oral spines (3), and mandibles with only one tooth, readily distinguish this species from all its congeners. The type locality is the tropical Indian Ocean, just west of the Cocos Islands, 10°8’S, 97°15’E (  Valdivia Stn. 182) and near the Seychelles, 4°35’S, 53°43’E (  Valdivia Stn. 235). The latter is the locality of the specimen figured by Woltereck. </p>
            <p>Material examined (134 specimens)</p>
            <p>North Atlantic: 4 lots (BMNH), 4 lots (USNM), 8 lots (ZMUC), 20 specimens. South Atlantic: 1 lot (BMNH), 1 lot (ZMB), 5 lots (ZMUC), 9 specimens. North Indian: 8 lots (ZMUC), 13 specimens. South Indian: 2 lots (SAM), 24 lots (ZMUC), 51 specimens. Central Indo­Pacific: 4 lots (ZMUC), 7 specimens. North Pacific: 1 lot (BMNH), 2 lots (CAS), 4 lots (LACM), 9 lots (USNM), 4 lots (ZMUC), 23 specimens. South Pacific: 6 lots (ZMUC), 10 specimens. Tasman Sea: 1 lot (ZMUC), 1 specimen.</p>
            <p>Diagnosis</p>
            <p>Body length of females up to 140 mm, of males up to 90 mm. Head as long as deep; as long as first 5.5 pereonites combined; oval when viewed laterally, with evenly convex anterior margin when viewed dorsally. Marginal spines 12­14; anterior ventral spine larger than glandular spine, clearly the largest; oral spines 2­4. Eyes oval, barely separated medially. First antennae only about half as long as head, with one small terminal article. Mandibles with only one medial tooth. Urosome (with uropods) slightly shorter than pleon. Uropod 1; exopod marginally shorter than endopod, about 0.3x length of peduncle. Uropod 3; exopod subequal in length to endopod, slightly less than half­length of peduncle.</p>
            <p>Remarks</p>
            <p> This is the largest species of  Cystisoma , readily distinguished by the short first antennae, which are relatively shorter than in any other species. One of the Challenger specimens (specimen E, BMNH 1889.5.15.196), a juvenile male measuring 42 mm, has first antennae slightly longer than the head but all other characters are consistent with  C. magna . Similarly, three of the nineteen males from the Dana collections have first antennae slightly longer than the head. Perhaps juvenile specimens have relatively longer first antennae as in  C. longipes ? </p>
            <p> Cystisoma magna also differs from all other species in that the peduncle of uropod 1 is relatively longer, being about three times as long as the exopod. </p>
            <p> Shoemaker (1945) recorded 15 specimens from Bermuda but an examination of this material proved that they are all  C. longipes . </p>
            <p>Distribution</p>
            <p>This species is known from a few scattered records from the warm waters of the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It is also found off the southeast coast of South Africa.</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/013487FFB735FFECFEE9D457FE82999D	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	Zeidler, Wolfgang	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2003): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod family Cystisomatidae Willemöes­Suhm, 1875 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea). Zootaxa 141: 1-43, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.156376
013487FFB73DFFD0FEE9D43FFB809CC5.text	013487FFB73DFFD0FEE9D43FFB809CC5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cystisoma latipes (Stephensen) Stephensen	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Cystisoma latipes (Stephensen) (Figs 10­13) </p>
            <p> Thaumatops latipes Stephensen, 1918: 62 ­63, fig. 21. – Schellenberg 1927: 621, fig. 29. </p>
            <p> Cystisoma latipes – Pirlot 1938: 377, 379, 380, 384, 386. Pirlot 1939: 34. Brusca 1973: 9 (Table), 14. Brusca 1981a: 19 (key), 39, fig. 5d. Brusca 1981b: 358, fig. 12c. Vinogradov et al. 1982: 254 ­255, fig. 125. </p>
            <p> ?  Cystisoma parkinsonii Stebbing, 1888: 1332 ­1333. </p>
            <p> ?  Thaumatops parkinsonii – Stephensen 1918: 66 ­68, figs 28, 29. Schellenberg 1927: 623, fig. 32. </p>
            <p> ?  Thaumatops longipes [misidentification] – Bovallius 1887b: 558. Bovallius 1889: 47 ­52 (spec. B, non A). </p>
            <p>Type material</p>
            <p> The unique type of  C. latipes , a male measuring 44 mm, is in the ZMUC (CRU 2828). The type locality is the North Atlantic Ocean, south of Ireland, 49°22’N, 12°52’W (  Thor Stn. 81), 1350 m. </p>
            <p>Type material of synonyms</p>
            <p> The unique type of  C. parkinsonii , a male measuring about 50 mm, is in the BMNH (1889.5.15.198). Stebbing (1888) originally described this species, referring to it as “  Cystisoma . Specimen F”, and proposed the name  C. parkinsonii “if, in view of the great length of the upper antennae, it be necessary to separate this specimen from the others”. The specimen is very similar to  C. latipes , differing in having slightly shorter first antennae, mandibles with only a medial tooth, and the basis of pereopod 7 slightly narrower but still relatively inflated proximally. Despite these differences, it appears to be the same as  C. latipes , although the length of the first antennae could not be determined accurately, because the specimen is in pieces. Amongst the material examined there are other specimens of  C. latipes with mandibles without lateral teeth and the basis of pereopod 7 relatively inflated proximally, compared to other species. </p>
            <p>Material examined (56 specimens)</p>
            <p> Types. Holotype male of  C. latipes , approx. 44 mm: in spirit. Holotype male of  C. parkinsonii , approx. 50 mm, specimen “F”, Challenger Stn. 196, north of Amboina, 0°48’30”S, 126°58’30”E, trawled 825 fathoms, 13th October, 1874: 3 microscope slides of head, mouthparts, Us, A1, G1 &amp; 2 and P3­7 from right; remainder in spirit. </p>
            <p>Other material examined. North Atlantic: 8 lots (ZMUC), 1 lot (USNM), 9 specimens. South Atlantic: 1 lot (SAM), 2 lots (ZMUC), 3 specimens. North Indian: 1 lot (ZMUC), 1 specimen. South Indian: 1 lot (SAM), 10 lots (ZMUC), 12 specimens. Central Indo ­Pacific: 2 lots (ZMUC), 2 specimens. North Pacific: 2 lots (CAS), 1 lot (LACM), 2 lots (USNM), 5 specimens. South Pacific: 2 lots (ZMUC), 2 specimens.</p>
            <p>Diagnosis (males only)</p>
            <p>Body length up to 50 mm. Head as long as depth posteriorly; as long as first 4.5 pereonites combined; wedge­shaped when viewed laterally, with slightly concave anterior margin when viewed dorsally. Marginal spines 14­15; anterior ventral spine sometimes smaller than glandular spine; oral spines 2­4. Eyes obliquely­oval, barely touching anteriorly, and widely separated posteriorly. First antennae as long as head and pereon combined, with one small terminal article, medial surface with dense brush of aesthestascs, slightly inflated proximally. Mandibles with one medial tooth and one lateral tooth (absent in some specimens). Pereopod 7 with pear­shaped basis, inflated proximally, maximum width about half­length, or 4x width, near distal margin. Urosome (with uropods) slightly shorter than pleon. Uropod 1; exopod subequal in length to endopod, about 0.4x length of peduncle. Uropod 3 similar to U1, exopod length slightly more than half­length of peduncle.</p>
            <p>Female unknown.</p>
            <p>Remarks</p>
            <p> Unusual characters of this species are the relatively long first antennae with aesthestascs, and the wedge­shaped head. In all other species of  Cystisoma the head is more oval and, except for  C. gershwinae sp. nov. , the first antennae are without a brush of aesthestascs medially. The eye shape is also unusual, and the eyes occupy less of the lateral part of the head than other species, suggesting that this species may inhabit deeper water than its congeners. </p>
            <p>According to water­colour drawings and colour notes made from living material by Stephensen, the specimens are colourless, except for articles 4 and 5 of pereopod four, articles 2­6 of pereopods 5­7 and the first uropods, all of which are pink/red at the margins.</p>
            <p> Some specimens examined have all the characters of  C. latipes except that the mandibles lack lateral teeth (e.g. USNM 39002). In this respect they are similar to the specimen described as  C. parkinsonii by Stebbing (1888) (Fig. 12). Thus, it would seem that the presence or absence of a lateral mandibular tooth is variable in  C. latipes . As these specimens are slightly larger than the type this character is not size dependent. </p>
            <p> Amongst the material from the ZMUC, which was seen by Stephensen (1918), are three specimens with relatively long first antennae that are tentatively assigned to  C. latipes . The first of these (ZMUC CRU 2838), described by Stephensen as  Thaumatops bovalli (=  C. longipes ), is a male measuring 46 mm from  Thor Stn. 73. This specimen differs from  C. latipes in having slightly shorter first antennae without aesthestascs, and pereopod 7 with a narrower basis. The medial surface of the first antennae has a broad white band, which may represent developing aesthestascs. It is possible that this is a recently moulted specimen in which the aesthestascs have not yet developed (as found in other species of hyperiideans), and the basis of pereopod 7 has not differentiated. A second specimen (ZMUC CRU 2833), described by Stephensen (1918) as  Thaumatops parkinsonii , is a juvenile male measuring 38 mm from  Thor Stn. 72. It is very similar to the previous specimen but the mandibles lack a lateral tooth. The third specimen (ZMUC CRU 2834) is Bovallius’ (1887b) “ type ” specimen B of  C. longipes (Fig. 13), which Stephensen (1918) also refers to  T. parkinsonii . This specimen, measuring 46 mm, seems to be a juvenile female with developing brood plates. Both Stephensen (1918) and Bovallius (1889) refer to it as a male, probably because pereonite 7 appears to have a pair of gonopores. However, the presence or absence of testes could not be determined as the specimen is in poor condition. It differs from  C. latipes in that the mandibles lack lateral teeth and pereopod 7 has a narrow basis. In many respects it is similar to the type of  C. parkinsonii , particularly in the generally more slender uropods and in the relatively longer exopods, which are clearly longer than the endopods. This may be a female character of this species. If this specimen is  C. latipes then it is the only confirmed female specimen of the species. The type of  C. parkinsonii was re­examined but the sex could not be confirmed from the remains. </p>
            <p>Distribution</p>
            <p>Previously known only from the North Atlantic. Now also known from scattered records from the warm waters of the Indian and Pacific Oceans.</p>
            <p> Cystisoma gershwinae sp . nov. (Figs 14 &amp; 15) </p>
            <p>Material examined (14 specimens)</p>
            <p>Types. Holotype. Male, 43 mm (USNM cat. 266786). Off Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, Canada, 51°57’N, 131°05’W, 0­360 m, Halibut Commission, University of Washington, M.H. Pettibone: in spirit.</p>
            <p>Paratypes. 1. Male, approx. 53 mm (urosome missing) (USNM cat. 266788). Baja California, Mexico, 39°00’N, 121°00’W to 29°39’N, 121°00’W, mid­water trawl 1140 fathoms, R. Wisner &amp; Parby, 27 April 1951: in spirit. 2. Male, approx. 53 mm (SAMA C5906). San Clemente Basin, California, 500­1000m, IKMT, A. Collins, December, 1997: in spirit. 3. Male, 40 mm (LACM CR 15000057). Locality data uncertain, given as “8346” but is possibly off southern California. 4. Male, 40 mm (ZMUC CRU 3728). Equatorial North Atlantic between Africa and South America, 12°11’N, 32°49’E (Dana Stn. 1165), 1000 MW, 9 September 1921: in spirit. 5. Male, 45 mm (ZMUC CRU 3729). Equatorial North Atlantic between Africa and South America, 10°16’N, 40°41’W (Dana Stn. 1166), 1000 MW, 11 September 1921: in spirit.</p>
            <p> Other material. Six males, 35­45 mm, in poor condition, collected by the Dana (ZMUC CRU 3730­3735) from the equatorial North Atlantic (Stn. 1163), Banda Sea (Stn. 3677), western North Pacific (Stn. 3751) and the eastern North Indian Ocean (Stns. 3902 &amp; 3903). Also, two males in very poor condition, collected by the  Galathea (ZMUC), from the Celebes Sea (Stn. 448) and the western tropical Indian Ocean (Stn. 241). </p>
            <p>Diagnosis (males only)</p>
            <p>Body length up to 53 mm. Head as long as depth; as long as first 5 pereonites combined; oval when viewed laterally, with straight anterior margin when viewed dorsally. Marginal spines 11; anterior ventral spine shorter than, or subequal to, glandular spine; oral spines absent. Eyes oval, barely separated medially. First antennae slightly longer than head and pereon combined, with one tiny terminal article, medial surface with dense brush of aesthestascs. Mandibles with one medial tooth, lateral teeth absent. Pereopod 7 with basis slightly inflated proximally. Urosome (with uropods) about as long as pleon. Uropod 1; exopod slightly shorter than endopod, slightly less than half­length of peduncle. Uropod 3 similar to U1, exopod length almost half­length of peduncle.</p>
            <p>Female unknown.</p>
            <p>Description of holotype male</p>
            <p>Body length 43 mm. Head as long as deep; as long as first 5 pereonites combined; oval laterally, with relatively straight anterior margin when viewed dorsally. Marginal spines 11, the anterior one the largest. Anterior ventral spine slightly shorter than glandular spine. Oral spines absent. Eyes oval, barely separated medially. First antennae as long as head, pereon and first 1.5 pleonites combined, with tiny terminal article, medial surface with dense brush of aesthestascs. Mandibles with one medial tooth, lateral teeth absent.</p>
            <p>Gnathopod 1, relatively small, length slightly more than half G2, about 0.2x P3; distinctly chelate; basis about as long as remaining articles combined. Gnathopod 2, similar to G1, also relatively small, length about 0.4x P3; basis slightly longer than remaining articles combined. Pereopod 3, about half as long as P5; basis to propodus with denticulate posterior margin, denticles on propodus very small; merus, carpus and proximal half of propodus with transverse rows of setae, mainly medially; basis about as long as merus and carpus combined; carpus slightly longer than merus; propodus slightly shorter than carpus but slightly longer than merus. Pereopod 4, as long as 1.5x P3 and 0.7x P5; ornamentation similar to P3 but merus with less, and propodus with more, rows of setae; basis slightly shorter than merus and carpus combined; carpus length about 1.3x merus, slightly shorter than propodus. Pereopod 5 is the longest pereopod; basis to propodus with denticulate anterior margin, denticles on propodus very small; basis to carpus also with row of denticles posteriorly; basis only slightly longer than carpus; merus length nearly 0.7x basis; propodus slightly longer than basis. Pereopod 6, similar to P5, length about 0.8x P5; basis slightly longer than carpus; merus length nearly 0.6x basis; propodus slightly longer than carpus but shorter than basis. Pereopod 7; length slightly less than half P5; basis to propodus with denticulate anterior margin, denticles on propodus smaller; basis and merus also with row of denticles posteriorly; basis pear­shaped, maximum width proximally almost 3x width near distal margin, 0.4x length; basis as long as merus and carpus combined; merus marginally longer than carpus; carpus with fringe of long setae along distal margin; propodus slightly longer than carpus, with transverse rows of setae medially and along distal margin; distal margin concave with anterior tooth; dactylus curved, closing against distal margin of propodus, slightly longer than width of propodus.</p>
            <p>Urosome (with uropods) subequal in length to pleon. Uropod 1; peduncle length about 3x maximum width; exopod slightly shorter than endopod, slightly less than halflength of peduncle. Uropod 3; peduncle length about 3x maximum width, about 0.8x length of peduncle of U1; exopod subequal in length to endopod, almost half­length of peduncle. Telson very small, U­shaped, about 0.3x as long as third pleonite.</p>
            <p>Etymology</p>
            <p>Named for Lisa­ann Gershwin, Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, USA, for her continuous support and encouragement in my research of hyperiideans and for being responsible for locating paratype 2 of this unusual species.</p>
            <p>Remarks</p>
            <p>The paratypes are like the holotype, except for paratype 1, which has the urosome missing, and slightly shorter first antennae (as long as head and pereon combined), and anterior ventral spines slightly larger than the glandular spines. The first antennae of Paratype 4 are similarly relatively shorter than for the holotype.</p>
            <p>The non­type material exhibits the characteristic features of the holotype (viz. the oral and mandibular spines, long first antennae and pereopod 7 with an inflated basis) but have not been designated paratypes because of their poor condition.</p>
            <p>The distal margin of the propodus of pereopod 7 is similar in shape to that found in juvenile females of other species. However, the holotype, paratypes and the other specimens are clearly males, as they have distinct testes, and, or lack the developing brood plates usually found in females of a similar size.</p>
            <p> The combination of characters of long first antennae with aesthestascs, the absence of oral spines, mandibles lacking lateral spines, and pereopod 7 with a pear­shaped basis, and subchelate propodus and dactylus, readily distinguish this species from all its congeners.  Cystisoma gershwinae resembles  C. latipes in the length of the first antennae, which have aesthestascs, and the shape of the basis of pereopod 7. It differs from  C. latipes mainly in lacking an arched row of oral spines, a character that is only shared with  C. fabricii . The shape of the head and eyes is also more like other congeners than  C. latipes . </p>
            <p>Distribution</p>
            <p> This species has been collected from off Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, Canada, the San Clemente Basin, California, Baja California, Mexico and from the equatorial North Atlantic (type material). Other specimens assigned to this species (non­types) have, in addition, been collected from the western North Pacific, the central Indo­Pacific region and the tropical eastern and western Indian Ocean. This species probably occurs in other regions of the world’s oceans, having been mistaken for  C. latipes . </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/013487FFB73DFFD0FEE9D43FFB809CC5	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	Zeidler, Wolfgang	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2003): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod family Cystisomatidae Willemöes­Suhm, 1875 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea). Zootaxa 141: 1-43, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.156376
013487FFB703FFD1FEE9D2B8FD959B68.text	013487FFB703FFD1FEE9D2B8FD959B68.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cystisoma spinosus (Fabricius) Fabricius	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Cystisoma spinosus (Fabricius)</p>
            <p> Oniscus spinosus Fabricius, 1775: 298 . </p>
            <p>The description of this species is based on a drawing by Sydney Parkinson, while on board the Endeavour, and it is unlikely that Fabricius actually saw any specimens (Zeidler 1995).</p>
            <p>Although the figures are relatively detailed and accurate, some critical, characteristic features such as the mandibular teeth and ventral spines are not illustrated, thus making it difficult to determine which species is depicted.</p>
            <p> The name  O. spinosus of Fabricius (1775) is listed by Fabricius (1781, 1787 &amp; 1793) and by Gmelin (1789) but the species is not mentioned again in the literature until Stebbing (1888). Stebbing regarded  C. neptunus (Guérin­Méneville, 1842) and  C. pellucida (Willemöes­Suhm, 1873) as junior synonyms. He describes a number of specimens under that name of  C. spinosum , some of which cannot be determined from the literature. These specimens have been examined. Specimen “A”, a male, is  C. magna (Woltereck, 1903) ; specimen “B” is typical of  C. pellucida ; specimen “C” appears to be a juvenile  C. fabricii ; specimen “CC” is unidentifiable; specimen “D” is a juvenile  C. fabricii ; specimen “E” is a juvenile male  C. magna ; specimen “F” the type of  C. parkinsonii , is most likely  C. latipes , and specimen “G” is the type of  C. fabricii . Subsequent taxonomists have accepted the synonymy of  C. neptunus and  C. pellucida with  C. spinosum , but recent workers have not recognised Fabricius’ species, and it has only been recorded four times this century. The records of Vosseler (1901) and Woltereck (1903) most likely refer to  C. pellucida , that of Scott (1909) refers to a juvenile measuring only 20 mm and those of Tattersall (1906) and Yoo (1971) cannot be confirmed from the literature. </p>
            <p> Mature, female specimens of  C. pellucida are relatively easy to distinguish by examining the antennae and the urosome. The antennae end in a diamond­shaped glandular swelling and the exopodites of the uropods are distinctly longer than the endopodites. These characteristic features are clearly not evident in Parkinson’s drawings of  Onidium spinosum (a mature female), and the above synonymy is not justified. Furthermore, Fabricius’s species differs from  C. latipes (Stephensen, 1918) by the head shape, antennal length and width of pereopod articles, and from  C. fabricii by the antennal length. Also  C. fabricii has a very large pair of anteroventral spines, which would have been noticed by Parkinson, and would most likely have been illustrated if present. So, by process of elimination, we are left with  C. longipes and  C. magna . These two species are very similar but are separated on the basis of the mandibular spines, one in  C. magna and two or three in  C. longipes . Unfortunately Parkinson does not illustrate the mandibles so it is difficult to determine the species depicted with certainty. However, by comparing measurements made on specimens, it would seem that the length of pereopod 4 relative to pereopod 6 is most similar to  C. longipes . </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/013487FFB703FFD1FEE9D2B8FD959B68	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	Zeidler, Wolfgang	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2003): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod family Cystisomatidae Willemöes­Suhm, 1875 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea). Zootaxa 141: 1-43, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.156376
013487FFB702FFD1FEE9D2A5FC6799EF.text	013487FFB702FFD1FEE9D2A5FC6799EF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cystisoma neptunus Guerin	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Cystisoma neptunus Guérin ­Méneville </p>
            <p> Cystisoma neptunus Guérin­Méneville, 1842: 215 ­216, pl. 1, fig. 1. </p>
            <p>The type seems to be lost. It is not in the ANSP, which holds most of the Guérin­Méneville collection (Zeidler 1997), and it is not present in the collections of the MNHN (checked personally by T. Laperousaz), or the BMNH.</p>
            <p> In the past it has been considered a questionable synonym of  C. pellucida (e.g. Vinogradov et al. 1982), but the antennae and uropods of  C. pellucida are quite distinctive, and unlike that illustrated for  C. neptunus by Guérin­Méneville (1842). The specimen illustrated by Guérin­Méneville appears to be male, as pereopod 7 would have differentiated at 80 mm if the specimen was female. The length of the antennae and pereopods resemble  C. longipes (Bovallius, 1886) , but in the absence of knowledge regarding the teeth on the mandible, this species cannot be determined with certainty. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/013487FFB702FFD1FEE9D2A5FC6799EF	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	Zeidler, Wolfgang	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2003): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod family Cystisomatidae Willemöes­Suhm, 1875 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea). Zootaxa 141: 1-43, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.156376
