taxonID	type	description	language	source
03B28791FA30FFDFFE478876FB33FFE2.taxon	description	(Figures 1 – 6) Material examined Holotype: adult „ (dissected on to four slides) from Loch Kishorn, NHM Reg. No. 2004.4118. Paratypes: 20 adult ♀♀ (two dissected each on to three slides and 18 spirit preserved) and 19 adult „„ (two dissected each on to three slides and 17 spirit preserved) from Loch Kishorn, NHM Reg. Nos 2004.4119 – 4157; seven adult ♀♀ and nine adult „„, spirit preserved from Loch Diabaig, NHM Reg. Nos 2004.4158 – 4173. Description of female Body. Length 0.900 – 1.097 mm (mean 51.005 mm, n 510); sub-cylindrical, widest at posterior margin of cephalothorax, tapering gradually posteriorly. Rostrum (Figure 1 D) defined at base, elongate, triangular, extending beyond the second antennular segment, with a pair of small sensilla on lateral margins. Cephalothorax tapering anteriorly, as long as free prosomites. Genital double-somite (Figure 1 A – C) divided dorsally and laterally by subcuticular rib. Genital field (Figure 1 C) with separate genital apertures covered by vestigial P 6, each bearing two pinnate and one smooth setae; copulatory pore situated medially, posterior to genital apertures, and obscured by large oval-shaped copulatory bulb; internal seminal receptacles kidney-shaped. Anal somite with small semicircular operculum near median dorsal anterior border and overlain by a minutely dentate pseudoperculum (Figure 1 A). Caudal rami (Figures 1 A – C, 5 F) broader than long in dorsal view with a slender tube pore on ventral posterior margin; seta I (antero-lateral accessory seta) small and naked, seta II (antero-lateral seta) and seta III (postero-ventral seta) long and smooth; terminal setae IV and V well developed with few short spinules in central region; in most specimens seta V swollen in the fracture region; seta VI (terminal accessory seta) short and smooth; seta VII (dorsal seta) triarticulate. Somatic ornamentation (Figure 1 A – C). Body surface appears smooth under light microscope, all somites except preanal furnished with numerous sensilla and pores. Prosome without spinule rows; urosomite 4 with a median ventral row of fine spinules and a ventro-lateral patch of fine spinules, variable in extent; preanal somite with a continuous row of spinules ventrally and ventro-laterally; anal somite with a lateral and ventral row of strong spinules round the base of caudal rami. Hyaline frills of urosomites with minutely dentate margin. Antennule (Figure 1 D). Eight-segmented, segment 2 slightly swollen, with convex margins, segment 4 two times longer (on anterior margin) than broad; aesthetascs on fourth and distal segments. Setal formula as follows: 1 - [1], 2 - [11], 3 - [8], 4 - [3 + (1 + a)], 5 - [2], 6 - [4], 7 - [4], 8 - [4 + (2 + a)]. Antenna (Figure 2 A). Coxa well developed with row of setules. Allobasis with partial suture and row of spinules dorsally at base of exopod; one seta on abexopodal margin. Exopod three-segmented, proximal segment with one pinnate seta; middle segment short, with a pinnate seta; distal segment with an oblique row of strong spinules; with one pinnate seta on lateral margin and two stout pinnate spines and one naked seta on distal margin. Free endopod segment with two rows of strong spinules on outer margin, row of smaller spinules on distal and inner margin and on ventral face; lateral armature of two large pinnate spines and two setae; distal margin armed with one pinnate spine, four geniculate setae (two pinnate medially), one naked and one plumose seta. Labrum (Figure 1 E). Posterior margin armed with lateral groups of four teeth, a median row of smaller teeth and two rows of setules. Mandible (Figure 2 B). Coxa stout, gnathobase armed with a number of stout bicuspid teeth and a row of finer unicuspid teeth; two setae (one pinnate) at inner distal corner. Basis broad, with two rows of spinules on anterior face and three pinnate setae on distal margin. Exopod indistinctly two-segmented, proximal segment with one lateral pinnate seta; distal segment with three setae, two fused at base. Endopod large, one-segmented; with eight setae (two setae proximally, three setae subdistally and, on distal margin, three setae fused at base). Maxillule (Figure 2 C). Arthrite of praecoxa with two setae on anterior face; distal margin with four pairs of recurved naked spines, and two pectinate spines. Coxa with two pinnate setae on distal margin. Basis with two rows of spinules on anterior face and distal margin; bearing seven elements (two naked setae and two pinnate spines distally and three naked setae subdistally). Exopod one-segmented with two plumose setae. Endopod onesegmented with four setae. Maxilla (Figure 2 D). Syncoxa with two rows of spinules and three endites, proximal and middle endite armed with two, distal endite with three, pinnate spines. Allobasal endite with a large fused pectinate spine, a smaller articulating spine and three naked setae. Endopod one-segmented with five setae. Maxilliped (Figure 2 E). Syncoxa with three surface rows of spinules and four pinnate setae (two on distal margin and two subdistally on a small peduncle). Basis with two pinnate setae on palmar margin and a sub-marginal row of spinules. Endopod one-segmented, with a terminal, partially pinnate, claw and three accessory setae. P 1 (Figure 3 A). Intercoxal sclerite (not shown in figure) small, ovoid, without ornamentation. Praecoxa with a row of minute spinules along distal margin. Coxa with four rows of small spinules and one row of long spinules on anterior face and three rows of spinules on posterior face. Basis with rows of spinules on inner and median distal margin and at base of inner and outer pectinate spines. Exopod three-segmented, each segment with row of strong spinules on outer margin, exp 2 with row of setules and a plumose seta on inner margin, exp 3 with two geniculate setae on distal, and three spines on outer, margin. Endopod three-segmented; enp 1 longer than enp 2 and 3 combined, reaching nearly to distal margin of exp 3, row of strong spinules on outer margin, row of setules and a strong seta on inner margin; enp 2 less than half length of enp 3, with row of spinules on outer margin and a pinnate seta on inner margin; enp 3 with row of spinules on outer margin and, on distal margin, a small pinnate seta, a large geniculate seta and a spine. P 2 – P 4 (Figures 3 B, 4 A). Intercoxal sclerite strongly developed, almost square, sclerite of P 2 with two rows of spinules. Protopod ornamented as for P 1 except coxa with only three rows of spinules on anterior face and none on posterior face; basis without inner spine but with a distinct chitinous extension on inner distal margin. Rami three-segmented, equal in length in P 2 and P 3, endopod slightly shorter than exopod in P 4; distal segment longest; all segments with row of strong spinules on outer margin; proximal two segments of both rami with spiniform extension of outer distal margin; inner distal seta on exp 3 weakly developed. Setal formula of swimming legs as follows: Exopod Endopod P 1 0: 1: 023 1: 1: 021 P 2 1: 1: 223 1: 2: 121 (1: 312) P 3 1: 1: 223 1: 1: 221 P 4 1: 1: 323 1: 1: 121 Parentheses denote male condition. P 5 (Figure 6 A). Elements of each side not fused medially. Baseoendopod and exopod separate. Inner expansion of baseoendopod reaching about half length of exopod; with a few spinules on outer margin; armed with five pectinate or pinnate setae (three on inner and two on distal margin). Exopod about twice as long as broad, with few spinules on inner and outer margin; with six setae, proximal inner seta pinnate, distal inner seta and terminal seta naked, borne on a short peduncle, proximal and medial outer setae short and normal, distal outer seta markedly swollen at base. Description of male Similar to female except for urosome, antennule, P 1 basis, P 2 basis and endopod, P 3 exp 3 and P 5. Body. Length 0.59 – 0.80 mm (mean 50.66 mm, n 516), urosomites 2 and 3 not fused. Genital somite (Figure 5 C) with vestigial P 6 forming one fixed and one articulating plate each bearing three setae. Somatic ornamentation (Figure 5 A – C). As in female except that a ventral and ventro-lateral row of spinules present on urosomite 3 as well as urosomites 4 and 5. Antennule (Figure 5 D). Haplocer, 10 - segmented with segment 4 a small segment overlaying the proximal portion of swollen segment 5; geniculation between segments 7 and 8 which both bear modified elements; aesthetascs on fifth and distal segments. Segment 5 with distinctly shaped seta (broad base and flagellate tip) near proximal margin (shown more clearly in Figure 7 E). Setal formula as follows: 1 - [1], 2 - [11], 3 - [8], 4 - [2], 5 - [7 + (1 + a)], 6 - [2], 7 - [3?], 8 - [2?], 9 - [4], 10 - [5 + (2 + a)]. P 1 (Figure 5 E). Basis with a single, long chitinous projection at inner proximal corner. P 2 (Figure 4 B). Praecoxa and coxa as in female. Basis without chitinous extension of inner margin as in female but with a smooth, anvil-shaped, hyaline structure near inner distal margin (arrowed in Figure 4 B). Exopod as in female. Endopod modified, two-segmented; enp 1 as in female except inner seta slightly shorter; distal segment with three pinnate setae on inner margin, a seta (with a bluntly rounded tip and small pinnules) on distal margin and a large spine and a sinuous process (with a smooth rounded tip) articulating subdistally on outer margin. P 3 (Figure 3 C). As in female except that hyaline tube pore present on anterior face of exp 3. P 5 (Figure 6 B – D). Baseoendopods of each side fused medially. Endopodal lobe with two terminal pectinate spines and a few spinules on outer margin; outer peduncle elongate. Exopod about 1.5 times as long as broad with a short row of spinules at base of distal inner seta, a small tube pore on anterior surface and outer distal corner attenuated into a chitinous process; bearing four or five setae, of which inner two setae strongly developed and pinnate, distal and proximal outer setae naked, long and slender, distal outer seta either absent (Figure 6 D) or vestigial and only visible under × 40 (Figure 6 C) or × 100 (Figure 6 B) oil immersion objectives. Etymology The specific name is the Latin for anvil, reflecting the shape of the hyaline structure on the male P 2 endopod. Variability The ornamentation of the urosome was consistent in the presence of fine spinule rows on urosomites 4 and 5 in the female and urosomites 3 – 5 in the male but the extent of the spinule patches ventro-laterally varied from a few spinules to many spinules. There was no discernible variation in the structure and setation of the oral and swimming appendages except for the presence and size of the distal outer vestigial seta on the male P 5. Remarks This material from the two Scottish lochs has been assigned to a new species primarily on the basis of the structure on the basal segment of the male P 2 endopod, on the form of the male P 5 exopod and on the ornamentation of the urosome in both sexes. Mu and Gee (2000) first noted and figured (their Figures 13 A, 14 D) the presence of a peculiar flexible, semi-hyaline, papillate, spine-like structure on the basis of the P 2 of the male in their specimens of B. imus which was not present in any of their Chinese material. They concluded that this structure was homologous to the chitinous apophysis present on the basis of the female but otherwise absent in the male of B. imus. The same structures are found on the basis of the P 2 in female and male specimens from Scotland but here the semi-hyaline structure in the male is completely different in shape, being smooth-walled and T-shaped, very much like a blacksmith’s anvil. Mu and Gee (2000), in their Figure 13 B, showed that the exopod of the male P 5 of B. imus was only slightly longer than broad and bore six setae, two strongly developed, plumose inner setae, one distal naked seta and three outer setae, the proximal one well developed and pinnate and the two distal setae well developed and distinctly swollen at the base. In the Scottish material the exopod is about 1.5 times longer than broad with the same inner and distal armature but a very different armature of the outer margin. At the outer distal corner is a large chitinous apophysis which has almost certainly been formed by the enlargement and fusion with the segment of the distal outer swollen seta of B. imus. In some specimens there is still an indication of a suture line at the base of the apophysis on the posterior face. Conversely, the middle outer seta has become vestigial (very often its presence can only be discerned under × 100 oil immersion objectives) or has been lost entirely. Drastic modification of the two distal outer setae of the male P 5 exopod has also been reported for B. chappuisi by Rouch (1962), who describes and figures an exopod more than twice as long as broad with both the distal outer setae fused to the segment and forming chitinous projections. In this species Rouch (1962) also indicates in his Figure 34 (but does not mention in the text) that the swollen distal outer seta of the female P 5 exopod is also fused to the segment. Whilst these features clearly distinguish the male of B. incus from the male of B. imus, the only distinguishing characteristic in the female is in the abdominal ornamentation. Mu and Gee (2000) showed that in female B. imus there is a group of two strong spinules on the postero-lateral border of urosomite 3 and a median ventral row of strong spinules on the posterior border of urosomite 4 and never any spinules on the posterior border of urosomite 5. In the Scottish material of B. incus there is always a complete row of very fine spinules on the posterior border of urosomite 5; always a ventral row and a small to large ventro-lateral patch of fine spinules on the posterior border and lateral face of urosomite 4 and occasionally a few fine spinules on the posterior border of urosomite 3. Mu and Gee (2000) showed that the urosome ornamentation of B. imus was very consistent, even between two different populations in the North Sea, and it was the difference in somatic ornamentation which first alerted the present author to the possibility that the Scottish material was a different species. As a result of this discovery it is advisable to treat many of the records of B. imus with caution, particularly those from areas of high organic pollution on the west coast of Scotland, e. g. Moore and Pearson (1986). In this connection, it is interesting to note that although the description and figures of Stenhelia reflexa by T. Scott (1895) is only of the female, this species has definite characteristics of B. incus rather than B. imus, with which species it was synonymized by Lang (1948). In Scott’s drawings he clearly shows a female with a row of spinules on the preanal somite (urosomite 5) which is never found in B. imus. Further, he illustrates seta V of the caudal ramus with a swelling in the fracture zone (not found in specimens of B. imus I have studied), and he illustrates the exopod of the mandible with only one lateral seta on the proximal segment (as in B. incus but B. imus has two).	en	Gee, J. Michael (2005): Two new species of Bulbamphiascus Lang (Copepoda: Harpacticoida: Diosaccidae) from Scotland and the Isles of Scilly, with additional observations on B. denticulatus (Thompson). Journal of Natural History 39 (22): 1961-1979, DOI: 10.1080/00222930500060397, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222930500060397
03B28791FA3DFFC1FE2B8C9EFB3CFA2F.taxon	description	(Figure 7)	en	Gee, J. Michael (2005): Two new species of Bulbamphiascus Lang (Copepoda: Harpacticoida: Diosaccidae) from Scotland and the Isles of Scilly, with additional observations on B. denticulatus (Thompson). Journal of Natural History 39 (22): 1961-1979, DOI: 10.1080/00222930500060397, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222930500060397
03B28791FA3DFFC1FE2B8C9EFB3CFA2F.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined Holotype: adult „ (dissected on to four slides) from intertidal sandflat on St Martin’s, Isles of Scilly, NHM Reg. No. 2004.4174. Paratypes: two adult ♀♀ (one dissected on to four slides) and three adult „„ from the same locality, spirit preserved, NHM Reg. Nos 2004.4175 – 4179; one ♀ and one „ spirit preserved, collected by the University of London Sub-Aqua Club (USLAC) from sandy substrate, 20 – 30 m depth from Deep Point, Peninnis Head and Darrity’s Hole, St Mary’s, Isles of Scilly, NHM Reg. No. 1967.10.31.48.361.6. Description of female As in B. incus except as follows: body length 0.625 – 0.785 mm (mean 50.648 mm, n 53). Urosome ornamentation (Figure 7 A, B) consisting of a short row of strong spinules on ventral posterior margin of urosomite 4. Caudal ramus seta V without swelling at base. Description of male As in B. incus except as follows: body length 0.48 – 0.67 mm (mean 50.562 mm, n 55). Urosome ornamentation (Figure 7 C, D) consisting of short row of strong spinules on ventral posterior border of urosomites 3 and 4. Etymology The species name refers to the Isles of Scilly. Remarks In the above material, all the males have the principal characteristics of B. incus, namely the anvil-shaped semi-hyaline structure on the basis of P 2 (arrowed in Figure 7 G) and the outer chitinous apophysis and vestigial (or absent) distal outer seta of the male P 5 exopod (Figure 7 F). Although Wells (1961) described this seta as absent and the chitinous apophysis as a seta, an examination under × 100 oil immersion objective of his ULSAC material (Wells 1970) indicated a P 5 exopod exactly as drawn in Figure 7 F. The singular difference between the Scottish and Scilly Isles material is in the ornamentation of the urosome. No specimens from the Scilly Isles have any spinules on urosomite 5 and the spinules on the other somites are much coarser than in all the Scottish material. Indeed the body ornamentation of the Scilly Isles specimens is much more akin to that of B. imus as shown in Mu and Gee (2000, Figure 11 B, C) than it is to the Scottish B. incus. In fact there is no difference between the two species in body ornamentation in the male and the only difference in the female is that the small ventro-lateral group of two to three spinules on urosomite 3 in most B. imus is absent in the Scilly Isles material, a very minor difference making a distinction between the Scilly Isles females and those of B. imus very uncertain. The other difference between the Scottish and Scilly Isles material is in their habitats. The former was found in soft muddy sediments, high in organic material and probably with high levels of bacteria, judging by the number of filamentous bacteria attached to the specimens. The latter was recovered from clean, coarse sand, in an area completely free of organic or chemical pollutants. That the Scilly Isles material is more closely related to B. incus as described above than to B. imus is clear from the structure of the male P 2 endopod and P 5 exopod. However, whether the differences in abdominal ornamentation are sufficient to accord the Scilly Isles material specific status, or are merely an expression of sub-specific population variation is more difficult to ascertain until more populations of Bulbamphiascus from a variety of habitats have been critically examined. However, I have decided to accord the Scilly Isles material specific status based on: (1) the fact that Mu and Gee (2000) found no difference in the abdominal ornamentation of two populations of B. imus down the east coast of England, or in populations of two closely related species of Bulbamphiascus they described from all over the Bohai Sea in China; (2) whilst, in my experience, it can be quite common for different species of a genus to have the same or very similar ornamentation patterns, I have not come across another case of the same species having significantly different ornamentation patterns on the urosome. It is almost certain that all the records of B. imus from the Scilly Isles can be referred to this species (Brady 1880; Wells 1961, 1970) and other records of B. imus, particularly from coarse clean sand and shell gravels, should be viewed with caution, e. g. Roe (1958) from Dublin Bay, Wells (1963) from Strangford Lough, and Geddes (1972) from Anglesey.	en	Gee, J. Michael (2005): Two new species of Bulbamphiascus Lang (Copepoda: Harpacticoida: Diosaccidae) from Scotland and the Isles of Scilly, with additional observations on B. denticulatus (Thompson). Journal of Natural History 39 (22): 1961-1979, DOI: 10.1080/00222930500060397, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222930500060397
03B28791FA23FFC2FEFC89B9FD83FA89.taxon	description	(Figures 8, 9) Material examined Thirteen ♀♀ (one dissected on to three slides), 35 „„ (one dissected on to four slides) and seven copepodids from coarse intertidal sand on St Martin’s, Isles of Scilly, NHM Reg. Nos 2004.4180 – 4191. Description of female As described by Thompson (1893) and Sars (1911) except with the following additions. Body length 0.665 – 0.85 mm (mean 50.73 mm, n 58). Urosome ornamentation (Figure 8 A, B) a single median ventral row of coarse spinules on posterior margin of urosomite 4 and on anal somite at base of caudal rami. Antennule (Figure 9 C) with pronounced apophysis at outer distal corner of segment 2; this and segment 4 slightly longer than in B. imus but armature of all segments as for that species. Mouthparts as in B. imus. Description of male As described by Sars (1911) except with the following additions. Body length 0.55 – 0.695 mm (mean 50.59 mm, n 510). Urosome ornamentation (Figure 8 C, D) as in female except with additional row of spinules on ventral posterior border of urosomite 3. Antennule (Figure 9 B) 11 - segmented as result of segment 9 in B. imus being divided into two segments, total armature as in B. imus. P 1 basis (Figure 8 E) with single chitinous projection at inner distal corner. P 2 basis with large tapering, tubiculate, semi-hyaline projection at inner distal corner (arrowed in Figure 9 A), identical to that found in B. imus. P 5 (Figure 8 F) exopod with six well-developed armature elements of somewhat different lengths to those shown in Sars (1911, suppl. Plate 18) and with both distal outer elements distinctly swollen as base. Remarks These observation show that the hyaline structure on the basis of the male P 2 endopod in B. denticulatus is exactly the same shape as that found in B. imus by Mu and Gee (2000) and that the ornamentation of the urosome and the structure of the P 5 in both sexes is also as described for B. imus. With the possible exception of the segmentation of the male antennule, this confirms the observation of Sars (1911) that the only feature by which B. denticulatus can be distinguished from B. normani (a synonym of B. imus) is in the attenuation into a thorn-like process of the outer distal corner of segment 2 of the antennule in both sexes. This appears to be the first genuine record of B. denticulatus in the Scilly Isles. It was not entered in the faunal list of Wells (1970) and although Lang (1948) records that Brady (1905) found it in the Scilly Isles on St Mary’s Island, the island to which Brady refers is St Mary’s off the coast of Northumberland. The preferred habitat of this species is coarse sand or shell gravel and virtually the only record from muddy sediments (inside Port Erin harbour) is that of Thompson (1893).	en	Gee, J. Michael (2005): Two new species of Bulbamphiascus Lang (Copepoda: Harpacticoida: Diosaccidae) from Scotland and the Isles of Scilly, with additional observations on B. denticulatus (Thompson). Journal of Natural History 39 (22): 1961-1979, DOI: 10.1080/00222930500060397, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222930500060397
